>>4533682
If the scanner is limiting you, you can enlarge before scanning. It can resolve up to 160 lp/mm. The rest is a digital problem not a Velvia one.

>>4533685
Anything beyond 30MP is just grain. There is no detail there.

>>4533688
160lp/mm on 35mm is way more than 30MP, sorry to pop your digislug bubble

>>4533693
Even if you were right there is no vintage glass that could resolve that detail. You're delusional, stuck in the past and frankly, not very intelligent. You are the epitome of the echo chamber you spoke of in the previous thread.

>>4533694
90s glass is vintage now, unc..

>>4533694
Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 (ZF/ZE) will do. Available for Canon EF.

>>4533694
bro theres so many lenses that outresolve my gfx 100mpx sensor, 30mpx FF is easy

>>4533697
To be fair, resolving 100MP GFX is just like resolving 60MP FF (it's basically a bigger a7RIV sensor). I wouldn't be surprised if a7RIV sensors were just defective GFX100 ones that got salvaged via binning, not sure how feasible that is as binning in CPUs is with same size ones where the defective part just gets disabled, a camera sensor would require cutting and that the electrical part of one half works after severing the other. Example: many 3-core processors are just 4-core ones with a defective 4th core, at first just defective binned ones but then they started disabling good ones to satisfy demand.

>>4533705
yeah, thats what i meant, you probably dont own a camera with a higher pixel density (not counting m43 because i am not a child), and ive gone through enough old lenses to know that the japs and germans knew what they were doing.

>>4533707
Other than MFT, Canon 90D/M6 II/R7 (32.5 MP) have denser sensors. Still mogged by film.

>>4533693
https://www.clarkvision.com/articles/scandetail/index.html
This guy actually tested Velvia 50 with a drum scanner and concluded that digital cameras with 12 to 16 MP sensors will match actual useful resolution of that film stock. With the best modern scanners you can get maybe 30 MP worth of real useful detail from that film and even that is stretching it. Enlarging grain is not extracting detail. You're like that old uncle repeating the same old bullshit stories he heard 20 years ago at a bar. You never did any research. You chose to believe false information without any proof because it fits your agenda. You're an idiot.
Not a single person was able to scientifically prove that Velvia 50 can hold more than 20 to 30 MP of real detail. Fujifilm's spec is theoretical and does not translate to real world examples.
If you want to continue this conversation then produce proof, not folktales.
>>4533695
90s glass is nowhere near as sharp as modern computer designed glass and most film stocks crap out at ~10 MP of useful detail.

>>4533715
>Published: January, 2000.
okay

>>4533715
>4x5 200MP equivalent
Nice.

>>4533716
If it was published today you'd claim it's AI bullshit. People like you will do all kinds of mental backflips to discredit the truth if it doesn't fit their agenda.
Being very stuck in your established worldview and refusing to budge when presented with proof is a major sign of low intelligence. There is also a strong link between low intelligence and endorsement of right wing ideologies and since cANON is a proven nazi then it means he must be ultra retarded.

>>4533681
>Trichromatic edition (strong filters are better for color according to PhaseONE, Kasson is WRONG)
>https://youtube.com/watch?v=HHM-vp9lWkk
nice find. very problematic for the guy who shills Capture One and Sony at the same time.

>>4533718
35mm has been proven to be good for 250-270mp

>>4533719
Do you have a reference for a single modern mirrorless’ CFA spectra or do you just make up technobabble to justify your brand shilling tho

>>4533717
According to that guy useful real world detail is actually more like 50 MP on a digital camera. Digital medium format already outresolved film a couple of years ago and without the stupid limitations of ISO 50, unrealistic color and getting lucky with your processing.
Anyone who shoots film for fine detail is a retard. You shoot film for the analog experience, funky colors, halation and vibes.

>>4533718
Oy vey!

>>4533720
Actually half frame 35mm film is good for 350 - 800 MP we just don't have the scanners to scan it.

>>4533718
trying to prove your theory with an article based on 2000s digital scanner technology is retarded

>>4533724
Also I was told that if you use an oldschool enlarger you can blow up a single 35mm Velvia 50 slide to the size of a football field and it will be super crisp even if you look with a microscope because that film was not a product of a scientific process and corporate manufacturing capabilities of the 90s but magic, fairies, unicorn tears and stardust.
BuT It'S AnAlOg bRo
Fucking retards.

>>4533722
>took the bait
>posts insanely retarded take
Thank you. Kek

>>4533725
If an old low res scanner already reached the limit of film resolution then what good would a newer high res one do? It'd be like sticking a shitty lens on a 60mp body when a 24mp one would already be more than enough.

>>4533728
>It'd be like sticking a shitty lens on a 60mp body when a 24mp one would already be more than enough.
Hilarious example because it's been tested and proven that you get more detail even after the supposed resolving limit of the lens with a denser sensor.

File: The-three-spectral-respon(...).png (125 KB, 850x293)

125 KB PNG

>>4533721
Do you have a better explanation as to why Sony's colors look off than poor CFA?
They sure as heck don't look like Nikon colors.

>>4533732
>you get more detail even after the supposed resolving limit of the lens with a denser sensor.
To an extent. Note how I said 24mp would be more enough, in this hypothetical situation. Nice strawman though.

>>4533724
akshually super 8mm is 8 gigapixels but i dont have the potent microscopes for it

>>4533734
What strawman? lmao cope harder, 24MP wouldn't be enough
youtube.com/watch?v=bUUuWf7_IEkk

>>4533733
Sony colors are among the best.
>NOOO THATS NOT THE MEME I FORCED ON 4CHAN
Yet sony is used by the AP and the majority of journalists outside of sports because of their accurate colors, and an increasingly large majority of fashion photographers shoot sony a7r bodies.

>>4533739
>because of their accurate colors
no, it's because these JPEG photographers use live view zebras which Canon and Nikon don't can't do.

>>4533739
>THE MEME I FORCED ON 4CHAN
Even Ken Rockwell says Sony colors are workable but lack the greatness of Nikon

>>4533728
35mm film is rougly equivalent to 2 gigapixels.

>>4533748
TRVKE

>>4533739
If you had the faintest idea of how corporate buying decisions are made you wouldn't use that as an argument. They draft some spec checklist and then pick the lowest bidder, open to whatever negotiation the execs can do like endorsements or whatever. It's no different than the brand of oil a car tells you to use in the manual.

>>4533738
That wasn't my point. It was just an example.

File: fuji-sony-moire.jpg (68 KB, 737x743)

68 KB JPG

>>4533681

File: NASAs-Artemis-II-astronau(...).jpg (105 KB, 768x1029)

105 KB JPG

>>4533739
>sony is used by the AP
NIkon is used by NASA. In which application do you think color accuracy is more important?

>>4533761
>worms

File: mooniehammering.webm (3 MB, 490x370)

3 MB WEBM

>>4533762

>>4533762
>unrealistic colors camera chosen for fake space footage

>>4533761
Wow, adobe camera raw is bad software. Capture one has never had a problem with sony’s advanced raw format. Why should anyone trust dpreview if they wont even use industry standard software? Adobe is for youtubers. It takes hours to do what capture one does in minutes.

>>4533776
low tier gearfagging like dpreview is for youtubers

Pros shoot phaseone and sony for real photography and canon for sports photography so they have no use for amazon owned shill review sites. They already have the best.

>>4533777
Trips of truth

>>4533776
Adobe isn't for anyone anymore. Photocraft/Lightcraft totally killed any reason to use shiteroom.

File: sony raw software.jpg (111 KB, 1382x919)

111 KB JPG

>>4533776
>Capture one has never had a problem with sony’s advanced raw format.

>>4533781
kek, so much for it being a lightroom issue
how will mirrrorlezzies cope next?

>>4533781
None of these are capture one.

Also, you are indian.

ITT: 72 IQ jeets pixel peep other peoples test charts because they cant afford to do photography but cant afford to lose izzat by letting other people like brands they dont either
>saaaaar i poost it again saaaar noone is allowed to like the snooooyyyyy saar i will lose many izzate saaaaar this is a jugaad (hack) i repost and reply to self and then i am right and i redeem

>>4533784
>>4533785
It's Sony's Imaging Edge Edit, which kinda destroys your claim that the RAWs look like shit on Lightroom because Adobe sabotages brands that send their customers towards Capture One. This is SONY'S OWN SOFTWARE.

>>4533786
>saaaar i cant afford capture one saaaar i can only improove slightly over lightroom so its cameras fault saaaar
You get what you pay for, dalit.

Shit, you cant even afford a camera. You dont fucking know how they work! You’ve never used one! You dont know why shooting black and white lines at f5.6 is a bad idea and you’ve never done any real photography at all! All you know is words and how you can use them to chase izzat!

>>4533786
> your claim that the RAWs look like shit on Lightroom
ESL. Too poor to own a sony or a capture one perpetual license. 100%.

Have fun theorizing about how your imaginary photos suck because of the camera you dream of owning lmao

>>4533786
>The softwae I was given for free is only slightly better than lightroom and not as good as industry standard software
Well, in the future when you can afford a sony, learn to use it so you don't get moire. Don't take photos of fine repeating details like test charts and brick walls at a sharp lenses sharpest aperture. It's not hard. 99.9999% of professional photographers use and prefer cameras without AA filters.

Remember to follow the filter guide to hide indian's shill posts
https://pastebin.com/diHque73

>>4533789
>ESL
I'm sorry for your education, maybe I should have written some ebonics so you could understand what I said.

>>4533791
You get Capture One for free with Sony cameras disingenuous shill

>>4533793
Yo raj, it's not "on lightroom" its "in lightroom".

Files are opened IN programs. Not ON programs. Why do thirdies always mix up "in" and "on"? Learn to speak english before shitting up our website.

Oh, and prove you even own a camera.

>>4533795
You edit ON Lightroom.

>>4533797
>Being this confidently wrong
Jesus fucking christ. Nuke india. No, you open a file in lightroom. You edit it in lightroom. You do everything in lightroom. In. Inside. In.

I get it, in your country, everything is on something. You don't have "indoors", you live in open air huts, so you're never "in the house" you're "on your mothers patch of dirt" or "under the roof" instead. You eat on the ground, not in the dining room. You do everything on something. Even when you have sex, your penises are too small to get inside, so you "have sex on the vagene".

But in the first world, we have "inside" as a concept.

>>4533799
bodied that jeet

i bet hes crying to the mods right now
>saaar i was reposting my sony argument on /p/ fifth thyme this week and they called me an indian with a small penis please ban for the racisms they just wont accept my dp review screenshot proves panasonic is better than fuji sir i have to keep reposting they wont agree please help its racism sir please thank you
>-the shill

>>4533801
15th time
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew/

>>4533705
>To be fair, resolving 100MP GFX is just like resolving 60MP FF (it's basically a bigger a7RIV sensor).
I told this to a GFX user who was proudly claiming it was a Fuji in-house developed medium format sensor and was oblivious to the fact that it is in fact just a different cut from the same a7r4 sensor wafer, and he unfollowed me. Touchy...

>>4533799
Look it's defensible to say that "in" is more idiomatic, but it's just wrong to say "on" is not correct.
Here's a translation for you:
>It's sonys imagine edge edit nigga, u say RAWs look like shite in lightroom cuz adobe finna fuck brands sendin their johns to that other pimp Capture One. This is sony's OG nigga, here have some lean this shit kicks

>>4533804
You indians are so fucking dumb holy shit.

>>4533804
Let me guess, AI told you "The file looks bad on lightroom" is correct
>yes saar, i, jeetotron, agree, hinglish is valid

>>4533805
>>4533806
You were talking about rendering of a RAW photo, it's like saying "the photo looks blurry on instagram". It's not "in instagram".
When you say file you're changing the construction like the filthy weasel you are.

File: IMG_4956.jpg (296 KB, 1965x1474)

296 KB JPG

>>4533803
>different cut from the same a7r4 sensor wafer
Camera sensors are not like CPUs. They can't have parts sliced off because there are important circuits at the edges of the die. All camera sensors are manufactured at their correct size and faulty parts are discarded. You can't cut a medium format chip to 35mm and still have it work.

>>4533809
Of yea it's definitely in-house Fuji manufactured and designed, you are right! Retard...

>>4533809
Doesn't negate the possibility of it being on the same sensor wafer in fact your pic shows one wafer with different sensor sizes

>>4533810
>definitely in-house Fuji manufactured and designed
I never said that. I only corrected part of your comment. I'm sure Fuji had some small input in manufacturing of their sensors but they were obviously made by Sony.

>>4533811
>cut from the same a7r4 sensor wafer
I understand this as "all sensors start as medium format sensors and the faulty ones get cut down to smaller sensor sizes". I've seen this take here in the past and it's just not correct. If I misunderstood his post then my apologies.

>>4533813
The arrangement of wafer cuts on various parts of the sensor does not change the fact that it is all based on the same a7r4 wafer... Your "correction" is irrelevant deflection.

>>4533814
>"all sensors start as medium format sensors and the faulty ones get cut down to smaller sensor sizes".
This was never claimed directly or implied. If that practice occurs as some kind of sustainability or cost efficiency measure in some product production scenarios, it is irrelevant to the fact that the GFX and other "medium format" sensors are using Sony a7r4 wafers.

>>4533718
>There is also a strong link between low intelligence and endorsement of right wing ideologies
There's no correlation, actually. Intelligent people typically ignore political boundaries in their own worldviews. But what does this have to do with photography?

>>4533766
>Half-life_crowbar_noises.mp3

>>4533807
Because instagram is a website, not a program. You post ON a website because it's the digital equivalent of posting a piece of paper ON a corkboard with whatever you posted written/printed on it. You load data IN software because it's the digital equivalent of putting something IN a machine that will be used to modify it.
The British should re-establish the Raj and teach you Godless retards how to speak my language correctly already. I'm tired of doing their job for them.

File: sony_a6700_45_crop.jpg (68 KB, 640x480)

68 KB JPG

>>4533791
>Well, in the future when you can afford a sony, learn to use it so you don't get moire. Don't take photos of fine repeating details like test charts and brick walls at a sharp lenses sharpest aperture. It's not hard. 99.9999% of professional photographers use and prefer cameras without AA filters.
The new guidance with snoy "f/22 and be there"

>>4533859
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/
>15 times
and still you have never owned a camera, paneer rashit. you have no idea how cameras work. notice no one else is complaining? avoiding moire is something beginners learn. but you are too dumb to learn. you only need izzat from winning an argument which is why you have the same one 15 times. if you lose you gave to regain izzat and try again. but the izzat can not be regained. when you repost to retry an argument you already lost you nuke your izzat.

you currently have -9000000000001 izzat.

File: 385788623_101593668578068(...).jpg (655 KB, 2048x1152)

655 KB JPG

I don't even have to try to avoid moire, it's just never shown up. This is the one photo I've ever taken where I thought it may have been an issue with the fine repeating pattern of the rad grill and carbon but it's just not there. It's almost like you have to purposely go looking for situations where it might arise, getting just the right angle and distance for it to show.

>>4533847
True. No intelligent person would support "palestine" (latecomer arab immigrants that diluted out the original population) as they'd have already learned the real history of the region. or support literally any muslims cause because they'd have already read the chronologically ordered quran and realized that once the abrogations muslims follow are factored in, it allows muslim men to rape all infidel women and take men who refuse to convert as slaves.

Being "an islamophobic zionazi" (as the leftists say) is right wing and ultra high IQ. Zero correlation. Colleges have sadly turned into leftist indoctrination centers. Teachers will cancel class and required students to protest some bullshit ie: BLM, free "palestine". Guess what the 19-20 year olds who swallowed the propaganda do to the ones that refuse to participate?

File: moire_suit.jpg (1001 KB, 1920x1080)

1001 KB JPG

>>4533863
>I don't even have to try to avoid moire, it's just never shown up.
either the camera has an OLPF, or the lens isn't sharp enough to resolve detail smaller than single RGB photosites.

Moire appears very reliably otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8

>>4533872
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/Qd3_W2K-taL5PfrIxtryCA/
>16 results found
>techno babble from a dpreview reading pajeet that has never used a camera
Every time you're told why you're stupid, you have the same argument over 50 times until no one is left to decisively disprove you.

The majority of professionals use cameras with sharp lenses and no AA filters. No one is complaining except you. It's almost like moire is a trivial mistake the new/bad photographers make. An AA filter is a huge sign that a stills camera is low end and meant for beginners and casuals, since its purpose is to blur literally every photo so a clueless idiot can't make that trivial mistake.

AA filters are primarily relevant to videography because moving subjects, changing camera position, and less room to alter the aperture (mandatory shutter speed, can't float the ISO without pissing off the post guys, can't use DOF the DP doesnt like...) make avoiding moire harder. Also, the highest resolution video footage most people see is ~8mp so blurring it a bit doesnt matter.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to slaughter a cow. Yes, I'm killing a cow today. 9mm to the skull. It's all going in my freezer. Tootles!

File: topkek.png (1.32 MB, 1248x1067)

1.32 MB PNG

>>4533872
you are indian

>>4533874
>The majority of professionals use cameras with no AA filters
Factually wrong.

>>4533877
You're literally correct in that low res models have very weak AA filters but they still have moire on dpreview so we're writing those off for now since that doesn't jive with rajesh's "argument".

exposure preview is useless
no one shoots jpeg or fucks with "tone curves", videographers set up their log gamma and go
but EVFs have made moire in real life photography basically vanish

if you dont see the moire flicker in and out and move your camera slightly to get rid of it, either you're stupid or your EVF is 480p

>>4533872
It's an A7R III so no OLPF and that would have been taken with the Zeiss 16-35mm probably stopped down a little bit (not to the extent to cause diffraction) so plenty sharp enough. If it requires an even sharper lens than that to get moire then it's even less of a concern.

>>4533849
Deep down, a website is a program too. Even Adobe sometimes uses the expression "on lightroom". You can try to gaslight all you want but in the end you know I'm right. For me, lightroom is like a light table when it comes to viewing pictures.

>>4533880
Holy shit i never thought of this. I do it. But I never thought “wow good thing i saw the moire on that window mesh and moved my camera 1cm”.

>>4533894
It’s “in lightroom” raj
>well adobe
Adobe is staffed by vibe coding indians

Get out of my country

>>4533861
>>4533874
You retards looked at a VERY CLEARLY MOIRE'D branch that this autist posted and said "nope, no moire". You have gone full-on Emperor's New Clothes, you make fools of yourselves every time he posts. I can't take you seriously and will never believe the slander. He has the same argument 50 times because none of you have actually proven him wrong.
Ban gear threads.

>>4533896
You sound like the type of guy who'd call Ted K "Indian". You can't eat your cake and have it too.

>>4533897
Some retarded indian who has never used a camera pixel peeped a branch shot and processed incompetently by dpreview

We call him retarded because this shit NEVER HAPPENS TO US BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO USE OUR CAMERAS

IT
IS
A
SKILL
ISSUE
PAJEET

STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD

>>4533897
raj, moire (interference pattern) is not the same as false color (demosaicing algorithm issue, minimized by using quality software and using your camera intelligently)

both are skill issues
mistakes
part of knowing how to use a camera is knowing how to avoid them

sure huskyfag got moire when he shot his bnw husky fur at f5.6 on an unfiltered sony gm lens
who the fuck does that?

>>4533897
It's the same as with cANON, he'll say some truism like "denser sensors have more reach" and these idiots will enable him arguing the opposite because they're too emotionally invested in their choice of camera being the best. At this point I'm convinced it's feigned retardation for entertainment.

>>4533899
>Moireautist posts it again
>Uhhhmmm uh but um actually uhhhhh FILTERED erm ahhh um JEET LOL
>To date, not a single actual valid counter-argument, no valid counter-example, just reeeeing and sperging and coping and seething and malding, every single attempt has fallen flat on its face
Not falling for your copium, sorry! Shoulda bought something other than a Snoy. What a shame.

>>4533900
You know how he could have avoided moire on the fur? With a camera that comes protected from the factory.

>>4533903
It's amazing how angry people get when you tell them the truth about something that they spent money on.

>>4533897
>You retards
There is only one moire denier on this board. He samefags all the time and assumes everyone who disagrees with him is samefagging too.

>>4533901
A camera isnt just a sensor. Idealized arguments are useless.

Denser sensors have more reach if your lens can resolve details that small without looking like shit and you can hold the camera steady and avoid shimmer and haze

cANON failed at all of this himself and micro four thirds reveals the problem readily. it takes $4k to make a 600mm f8 equivalent for a 20mp micro four thirds sensor and its bigger than a 600mm f6.3 for FF because the optical complexity needed to correct aberrations for teeny tiny pixels, smaller than an a7rv’s. And most people still take blurry photos with it, cranking the ISO or having motion blur issues they use AI to fix later.

>>4533904
>>4533903
>>4533902
No one complains except your samefagging ass because

IT
IS
A
SKILL
ISSUE
PAJEET

STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD

>>4533906
>mft equivalent blah blah
That's not the cANON argument at all, he says that if you take your FF lens and mount it on some high mp MFT you get more reach
>>4533904
It's like the buyer's remorse makes them impervious to the truth. What's it called, cognitive dissonance? The board is like an empirical version of the emperor's new clothes, fascinating.

>a dpreview shitter took a bad photo
>this is proof all high end cameras are defective and every photo taken on them needs to be blurred
>why am i the only one who knows the truth? my FACTS AND LOGIC are a full replacement for actually using a camera. I WILL REPOST THIS 50 TIMES UNTIL YOU ALL STOP DENYING MY TRUTH!!!!!!!
Why is /p/ dead?

>>4533905
That would explain a lot if true. One more reason to turn on post IDs.
>>4533901
No that was a bit different, cANON was saying -smaller- sensors had more reach cuz muh crop factor, he left out the real reason why his APS-C got better results than his FF on Saturn and didn't mention that just getting a better FF sensors would've done better.
Plus that's not even a very good way to get reach in AP, AP is extremely hardware-sensitive and more focal length will almost always be better than denser sensor, especially if it's also smaller.
A dense full-frame sensor on, like, a 7" Mak with a good Barlow would smoke the absolute shit out of any crop sensor.

>>4533909
It doesnt matter if your lens is shit and you’re a shit photographer.

And it is.
And you are.

SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU BRING UP THIS USELESS THEORY TEN TIMES A DAY

You dont take or post photos
You only argue about idealized theory
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT USING A CAMERA IS ACTUALLY LIKE

File: Screenshot.png (85 KB, 1024x767)

85 KB PNG

>>4533907
Cope, you're the one arguing dishonestly as if you could recoup some izzat or something btw

>sirs, nikon z8 is defective, sony a7rvi is defective, look, dpreview moire
>posts a photo a bad photographer took on an a7iv (has an aa filter) and processed in shitty software
>why does everyone deny there are problem sirs? i must poast agen

>>4533911
>No that was a bit different, cANON was saying -smaller- sensors had more reach cuz muh crop factor
I distinctly remember him talking about pixel pitch, not crop factor and you reeeeeing saying that it's image scale not pixel pitch as if pixel pitch wasn't the only variable of image scale that was changing in his example. You're a lolcow and I really hope you are doing this shit on purpose.

>>4533915
>no sir i dont care it does not hapen to you. it hapend on dp review sir. all modern camera is problem. every photo need blur so problem never happen. majority of pro is wrong and coping. dp review matter sars. is not skill issue. is problem. no skill should be need. quality on 60000000000 rupee camera nomatter. skill issue should not be a problem sir. i will post again. stop denying it. you have never prove me wrong. stop denying it. i will post agen.

>>4533891
Is it SOOC processing or with a RAW editor?

>>4533912
You're only here because you got banned on FM for being a retard.

>>4533919
>no sir, no one who disagree with me is right. You are all dumb. You here because you banned. There is problem on dpreview, there is problem on camera. There should be not problem on dprevjew sir! It should not hapen! If problem on dpreview problem on camera! I post agan! No one ever disprove me! I post again ! I post again! I post again! STOP DENYING MY TRUTH SIRS! SONY IS BAD! YOU NEED THE OLPF! YOU HAVE TO SHOOT JPEG ON MIRRORLESS!
And yet the world turns and people much smarter, better, more successful and richer than you keep:
Shooting cameras without AA filters
Shooting raw
Using sony
And you:
Do not own a camera
Do not take photos
Do not post photos
Repost technobabble on /p/ desperately trying to prove your favorite brands are better than your least favorite brands by spamming until no one is left to disagree

>sirs! sony has weak CFA? proof? SONY IS BAD. THATS THE PROOF. I POST THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU AGREE IT IS A FACT SONY IS BAD. I MAKE NEW GEAR THREAD. YOU WILL ADMIT SONY IS BAD AND THEN I STOP SIRS!
That’s you.

>>4533916
I'm not the STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION guy, anon. cANON got absolutely fucking BTFO'd in that thread. It was so bad he had to make a new one (despite there already being like 10+ of these on the catalogue). You wouldn't happen to have forgotten your trip, would you?

>>4533918
Straight out the camera, I only shoot jpeg

There are over ten 300 post gear threads on /p/ because one fucking retard keeps reposting his propaganda
>there is moire on dpreview so camera is bad. i dont care if it never happen to you. i dont care if 100000000 pros use it without an issue sir! there should not be moire on dpreview and I have the solution! NO ONE EVER PROVE ME WRONG I POST AGAIN UNTIL YOU AGREE
>shooting raw is dated bad for boomers sars! panasonic has tone curve menu! SHOOTING RAW IS BAD I REPOST THIS UNTIL YOU ADMIT IT
>sony has bad colors because I SAY SO SIRS i will repost this UNTIL YOU STOOP DENYING MY TRUTH! 100 REPOSTS UNTIL YOU AGREE. IT IS BECAUSE WEAL CFA. PROOF IS SONY IS BAD. STOP DISAGREEING. 100 MORE REPOSTS!
This is just one indian (half the youtube links he posts are in hindi) and its basically killed any real discussion that ever happened here

>>4533925
ONE youtube link is half? That wasn't even him btw.

>>4533926
Sure spamjeet, and no one ever proved the nonsense you repost is a skill issue either, which is why you’ve made over a dozen duplicate gear threads just to repost your disproven and nonsensical claims.

>>4533927
I'm not moireautist, sorry. Looks like you're delusional, whoopsie. One more reason to turn on post IDs!

>>4533928
Sure. I’m shohei otani.

>>4533928
>post IDs
>not user IDs
ESL detected
Jeet likelihood 100%

>>4533920
So you DID get banned from FM... It was a shot in the dark but your reaction confirms it.
>>4533921
That's the thing, he didn't get BTFO. Your attempts at argumentation about reach are so poor you supported his point. You unironically made less of a point for your position than he does about his nutjob moon landing/holocaust denial theories. Maybe you're his sidekick and we're all being taken for a ride here, you can't be this stupid.

>>4533936
i have never posted on fm in my life

I have only ever had the misfortune of reading forums when looking for lens reviews

You stupid hindu
>no cANON WON
cANON like you has his idealized theories balls deep in his own asshole but he’s permanently disconnected from the productive reality of photography. His all things being equal theorizing means nothing to the real world where no things are equal in any reasonable comparison (ie: not d750 vs g9ii tier dumb).

Thats a thing none of you nophotos get
Your theories based on charts and dpreview screenshots do not translate into that thing you dont do - practicable photography.
Reach isnt just buying a camera. Its buying a good lens and being a good photographer first and foremost.
Moire is a skill issue.
Good photographers fly through raws faster than you can pre-adjust one jpeg.
Equivalence falls the fuck apart in real use. Moving away from abstract theories to real mechanisms, aperture size controls light gathering, system mtf depends on the entire optical path AND pixel pitch AND conditions AND (you), pixel size controls per pixel photon noise and full well capacity (tonal range) adjusted for heat, interference, etc, and sensor size is just how many pixels of X size are in the camera.

Real life doesn’t work like your abstracted gearfag theorizing. Real gearfag theorizing is a bit more complex and useful. The problem is… it doesnt prove one camera is better than another.

>>4533922
To be honest it looks like a phone or Olympus image to me based on the processing I see, especially on the flattened patch of grass in the foreground and the right-most bike in the background.

>>4533941
You may argue that it's pointless to argue about reach, but can't argue he's wrong about it. I'm yet to see you debunk his claims, all you've done is distract and deflect. I'm reading the thread on the archive and cANON was right, you think you're smarter than you are. You're just like the angry photographer.

>>4533945
He’s only claimed a theory with all things being equal.
In practice very few things are equal, but he makes asinine recommendations to new people based on a theory that doesnt work without more information than he or they have and mixes it with his idiotic paranoid schizophrenia over viewfinders

He is not and never has been a photographer.

No one had a problem with cANON because his simplified abstracted theory was wrong. It was always because its irrelevant in context but he plays fake expert to fool random new people into buying dogshit canon APS-C DSLRs that get curbstomped by cheap olympus gear

>>4533945
cANON is a nophoto who technobabbles at whoever he thinks he can fool into buying a shitty canon rebel to “own the mirrorless jews” or something

also buying a denser sensor isnt free reach. his saturn “photos” proved it. all that reach and the result is still unusable.

>>4533954
But you claimed it was wrong. And you even claimed a Nikon from 2006 was a better buy than a 2017 Rebel. It's like you're desperate to contradict anything he says without considering whether it's true or not first.

>>4533955
They proved the point that there's more detail extracted and there's a quality improvement going from the one with lesser reach to the one with more reach. I don't think he ever claimed it was the ideal kit to image Saturn, that's a separate argument you're making to dismiss the actual claim. Of course a paranoid schizophrenic like him isn't going to show what he's using the extra reach for, for all we know he's sneaking around in a Ghillie suit near some building he suspects of some conspiracy to enslave humanity and put mirrorless processors connected to our retinas to fake the moon landing or some shit like that.
But the point that denser sensor=more reach remains uncontested and despite you protesting so much you failed to prove him wrong on that.

>>4533956
I? I did what? Who do you think I am, you fucking schizophrenic retard? The mossad agent NASA sent?

We all learn from each other here. Not everyone who comes to the right side is whoever the fuck last proved you wrong. I’m not the corgi fag who said a fuji was more fun to carry outside. I’m not the husky fag who said a d200 would take nicer looking photos and be nicer to handle because its not crippled consumer level gear. I’m just sharing some of their correct takes that I learned and verified, mixed with my own take:
Micro four thirds sensors are better than older canon aps-c (and better than the 5DIII at shadow recovery) despite the size disadvantage

>>4533958
>I’m not the husky fag who said a d200 would take nicer looking photos and be nicer to handle because its not crippled consumer level gear.
Well that's what I assumed you were because he too insists on using Capture One and that moire is Adobe's fault
>Micro four thirds sensors are better than older canon aps-c (and better than the 5DIII at shadow recovery) despite the size disadvantage
Sounds like the kind of shit even cANON would agree to

>>4533959
You mean false color? Moire is an interference pattern. False color is a demosaicing issue.

Both are skill issues but moire is more skill related than false color. Strong AA filters are not the answer for professional level photo gear… they are for beginners and video cameras. Professional gear has very weak or absent AA filters.

More than one person can also acknowledge capture one has always had better demosaicing than lightroom and any free software except for expertly configured darktable. It’s the industry standard for a reason and its the software phaseone pairs with the iq180.

>>4533925
This thread is just an LLM reposting the same things in different words.
> Moire
> Blinkies
> Snoy
> Xtrans

>>4533959
>a dog snapper is the only person here thats smart enough to recommend the industry standard raw processor and the only decent one with a permanent purchase option
Many people here use capture one. Huskyfag is just the only one who bothered challenging you to a photobattle (that you lost by default) because the rest of us already knew you would pussy out (you dont own a camera).

File: no_OLPF_rainbow.png (1.16 MB, 800x600)

1.16 MB PNG

>>4533961
>False color is a demosaicing issue.
False color like in pic related can be improved using a different demosaicing method, but that demosaicing method nukes color resolution by blurring with adjacent pixels i.e. does exactly what you complain about X-Trans doing.

An OLPF on the other hand doesn't really cause any resolution loss since the 0.5 pixels blur it causes is easily recoverable with raw demosaicing/sharpening.

>>4533964
Oh look, more pixel peeping dpreview samples.

Sure is weird the gorillions of photographers who have buying sharp lenses and bare sensors since the d800e/5dsr dropped never had a problem.

It's almost like this is a skill issue

>>4533897
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/1eO4TIIQ7ft19IWHYIV0ow/
SEVEN REPOSTS. SEVEN!

You have been proven wrong a fucktonne of times. Everything you complain about is limited to dpreview samples. Actual photographers don't have these issues because we learn how to use our cameras. Our cameras, meaning, we own cameras. Unlike you.

Does it strike you as odd that you think the majority of ILCs topping sales charts today are "bad" (based on your dpreview pixel peeping adventures) and every single one needs a $400+ special purpose modification?
Does it strike you as odd you have to repost the same claims dozens of times because literally no one agrees with you?
Does it strike you as odd the whole fucking world is using these cameras without issue and you can ONLY find problems on dpreview?
It's a skill issue

POST YOUR FUCKING CAMERA OR GET THE FUCK OFF OUR BOARD YOU STUPID AUTISTIC PIECE OF SHIT

>>4533733
4 reposts
>>4533761
15 reposts
>>4533781
3 reposts
>>4533859
15 reposts
>>4533872
16 reposts...

>>4533964
oh my fucking god kill yourself already

congratulations you found a badly taken, badly processed photo on dpreview do you want an award? if it were a design problem you wouldn't be reposting this on 4chan hundreds of fucking times over the course of several months you stupid fucking piece of shit autist

people who can actually afford cameras have been avoiding this problem forever by using the correct settings. if you lack the skill to use a high end camera without generating false color do not use a camera that is above your skill level. if you need every single photo to be blurred by default so you never have to worry if shooting a tree at f5.6 with a gmaster prime will generate false color or if you need capture one to extract as much detail as possible, we have a camera for you. it's called the iPhone.

fuck off now.

oh sorry did you just get disagreed with? did yet another person refuse to agree that every camera besides your canon rebel is bad? are you going to repost your dumbfuck nophoto shit ANOTHER 50 TIMES?

We had actual discussion here once.

Now its just people telling a nophoto pajeet to shut up and stop reposting his retarded gearfaggotry.

>>4533961
>You mean false color? Moire is an interference pattern. False color is a demosaicing issue.
>uh, you mean AIDS? HIV is a pathogen, not a disease
kys

>>4533969
He is right. Stop spamming the fucking board with this reposted gearfag garbage. Stop.

Its a skill issue. No one has an issue with this except one indian (you) pixel peeping sample photos from amazon employees. Less than a dozen sample photos you found issues with. And test charts shot at lenses sharpest apertures and processed in one of the shittiest programs (or as they say in your country, “shot in lenses sharpest apertures and processed on one of the shittiest programs”). We do not need to have five daily discussions on proper camera operation because your fucking autism might mislead someone.

And this is before addressing the flat out lies you post about sony CFAs and secret AI hidden in everything.

>>4533681
Should I buy a Red One X for 1000 bucks

>>4533971
Oh no, but you see, if anyone thinks that buying anything other than a panasonic is a good idea, especially if they buy a sony, his life is over. So he has to repost as much fake expert horseshit as possible to make it look like the only choices are a canon rebel or a lumix.

>>4533971
See you're deflecting again, false color are the only reason anyone cares about color just like AIDS is the only reason anyone cares about HIV. There's ways of making the false color less noticeable but the information is lost for good because it was never properly recorded (no OLPF). Everything else is seethe, cope, dilate and everything in between.
When (You) say "just do xyz to avoid moire" all your options involve changing the framing, aperture or focus. (You) are admitting a Sony camera gets in the way of the photographer's artistic vision.

>>4533975
That's because Sony cameras are just toys for people who once dreamed of becoming photographers some day. You buy a Sony because it's cheap not because it's good.

>>4533976
>>4533975
Hey dude, it would be nice if we could have our board back without you running your shitty propaganda campaign 24/7.

>omg taking a photo without moire means taking a different photo
Yes that's right, cameras are limited tools. You often have to use f11 instead of f8 to get an anti-aliasing effect. You can't buy a hypersharp nikkor gm L and shoot everything at f5.6 on a high end camera without issue. That's not how cameras for competent people work. They don't include things like mandatory blur to protect incompetent people from common mistakes.
> (You) are admitting a Sony camera gets in the way of the photographer's artistic vision.
Shooting a deep focus photo of a tree at f11 instead of f8 if you're using an ultra sharp lens compromises your vision? But having mandatory blur glued to the sensor doesn't?

Basically every full frame mirrorless has a weak or totally absent AA filter including the nikon Z7II, Z8, and Z9, every medium format camera, and believe it or not, most of the cameras from your favorite brand (lumix). Lumix has no AA filter at all on their 24mp models, while the a7iv, z6/z5, and r6 series all have weak asymmetrical AA filters. Which is ironic because lumix is a video-centric brand and video on a low resolution camera is the one application where an AA fitler makes sense.

This doesn't have dick to do with sony. Sony is actually one of the brands that is LESS prone to aliasing because more resolution makes it even more of a skill issue.

Please fuck off
Just fucking leave
We do not need your stupid sony/lumix centric propaganda campaign here
You have been reposting it for ages
What did you get as a repsonse?
We tell you fuck lumix. We call you stupid. No one fucking buys your reposted gearfag garbage propaganda. Fucking. Leave.

Leave.
Go. The. Fuck. Away.

I want my board back
Everyone wants the fucking board back to the way it was before you came here and started spamming /gear/ threads.

GO AWAY

>>4533976
>>4533975
fuck off and die clive

https://kolarivision.com/product-category/camera-conversion/olpf-aa-filter-upgrade/
>the kolari OLPF upgrade is only available for lumix
Sony?
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/heres-how-good-image-quality-sony-a7-iv-587329
>For example, the Sony a7 IV sensor has an AA filter, which although can help prevent moire, also reduces image quality.
The local autistic shill has been spamming /p/ with ass-pulled horse shit about moire to "own the sony fans" when it doesn't even affect sony?

>>4533976
>>4533975
You are unbelievably fucking stupid.

Not only have you never used a camera, not only do you not even own a camera, you don't even check the specs of the cameras you shill and whine about to sate your autistic fixation on camera brands

Fuck off already

I want the real /p/ back where we were able to admit some sony cameras are really bad and some are just a bit shit and leave it at that, where we had maybe two or three /gear/ threads max because you weren't making a new one every time you lost your contrived arguments based on reposted lies

Fucking leave

what's an affordable camera that will allow me to shoot with around this much resolution?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E4%B9%BE%E9%9A%86%E7%9A%87%E5%B8%9D%E6%9C%9D%E6%9C%8D%E5%83%8F%E8%BD%B4.png

>>4533814
OP here, I didn't claim that was the case but I did suggest it as a possibility. I wouldn't write it off entirely as a future possibility, it's a matter of someone clever enough coming up with a way to do it. If someone comes up with a way to produce a 44x33 sensor built as two seamless 24x36 ones, cropped to 44x33 someone's pockets will get filled. I mean this without a hint of irony, you can salvage a FF sensor if one half of the 44x33 gets botched. Turns loss into gain very quickly.
That said they most likely are made from the same wafers just because the lithography is the same and like your picture shows you'd waste a lot of the wafer if you only made the larger sensors. Incidentally this is also why the idea of making circular sensors isn't economically feasible. I have neither proof nor doubts that from each IMX 461 (44x33) wafer some IMX 455 (a7RIV/a7RV) get made.

>>4533983
fine art reproduction is almost always a custom scanning rig. the camera/light is moved over the piece (moving along a rail powered by servos) and many images are stitched together.

>>4533766
>kasson will defend this
lmao

File: +_54aa2598dd6aaac0045960d(...).jpg (53 KB, 500x519)

53 KB JPG

>>4533866
I'll take a Muslim Palestine from the river to the sea over the current thing. We can always do a crusade after we get rid of the real problem.

>>4533809
A lithography scanner’s exposure field is only about 26x33 mm. That’s smaller than a full-frame sensor, never mind medium format, so large sensors are usually made by “stitching”, or in other words, by printing several exposures side by side, using repeated pixel-array blocks plus edge blocks that carry the peripheral circuitry. With a modular stitched design, a manufacturer can in principle make different sensor sizes from shared building blocks by changing how many array blocks are stitched together. In that sense, a family of sizes can come from a common design.

Probably people truly believe that bigger sensors are just cut with scissors to make smaller ones, but the point stands: you can take an existing design and scale it up or down. That's how you can make "cut-down" versions of a sensor, not by literally cutting the die.

>Camera sensors are not like CPUs.
That's not how it works with CPUs either, and they're much more complex to manufacture than photographic sensors.

File: OM-3_a6700.png (743 KB, 982x860)

743 KB PNG

>>4533967
There are only a few circumstances when no OLPF is acceptable:

- Monochrome sensors.

- Foveon or similar sensor where there is no space between different color photosites.

- Gigapixel sensors that no glass will ever be sharp enough to resolve down to individual photosite level.

>>4533980
>Sony is actually one of the brands that is LESS prone to aliasing because more resolution makes it even more of a skill issue.
Neither camera in pic-related has OLPF. Why does the lower megapixel, smaller sensor have less intense false color given the same RAW development process?

>>4533990
>i want the warlike theocratic monoculture that wanted my culture dead and replaced even when we kept hoes in the kitchen and fags in the bath house to have a unified empire stretching from persia through africa and up through turkey
>why? because i saw some nasty jews in /pol/ infographics of course.
You don't remember what the ottoman empire did to europeans at all, do you?

>>4533992
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/3a9NnqqVLJ0a73UYRlHyjw/
3 reposts
You have had this question answered before.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4527555/#4528425
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4525985/#4526617
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4528488/#4528874
Fucking leave dumbfuck
Stop spamming the fucking board
Faggot

>>4533992
fuck off and die

File: A4jQh89m8fkFfmyRyqsG74XXX(...).jpg (127 KB, 1054x586)

127 KB JPG

>>4533901
It's not a simple truism, there's people who really struggle with basic facts like those. I don't state it to troll them, they get trolled by their own stupidity.
>>4533906
>Denser sensors have more reach if your lens can resolve details that small without looking like shit and you can hold the camera steady and avoid shimmer and haze
P1100 proves you wrong. Shimmer and haze exist but much like moire, they don't affect every shot. If you won't discard Sony because of moire (which is a niche problem and could be avoided by using any other brand with an OLPF), why should someone deprive themselves of reach just because sometimes there's shimmer? Hypocrite.
>cANON failed at all of this himself and micro four thirds reveals the problem readily. it takes $4k to make a 600mm f8 equivalent for a 20mp micro four thirds sensor
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
>and its bigger than a 600mm f6.3 for FF because the optical complexity needed to correct aberrations for teeny tiny pixels, smaller than an a7rv’s.
No, it's because MFT is a telecentric system and Sony a baby mount that corrects the vignetting in software, we've been over this already. But my point about reach was never to use MFT for equivalent lengths, it was to use the cameras as glorified teleconverters. MFT isn't even the best for that, Pentax is. Pic related. I would much rather have the Pentax over the Panasonic if chasing reach at any price (forgoing implicit photographic integrity). The gains that MFT offers over the 90D are too small. With the Pentax Q cameras you can one-up even the P1100.
>>4533909
>That's not the cANON argument at all, he says that if you take your FF lens and mount it on some high mp MFT you get more reach
EXACTLY. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS, HOW DO PEOPLE KEEP GETTING IT WRONG?
>>4533911
When calculating reach differences you use pixel pitch ratio, not crop factor. Denser sensors usually come in smaller sizes for cost and resolution reasons

>>4533997
Nice wall of stupid bullshit, you autistic nophoto fuck. People agree your basic theory about reach is valid. The problem is you don't have the skill or gear to make good on it. You don't even own a camera. Fuck off.
>If you won't discard Sony because of moire
Panasonic is the only brand where zero cameras have AA filters... you are so fucking stupid. Fucking leave.

File: 1558894516185.png (104 KB, 982x426)

104 KB PNG

>>4533994
>a unified empire stretching from persia through africa and up through turkey
>muh ummah
lmao don't bother pretending all Islam is the same thing when gulfies are backstabbing Iran to serve the west day and night
Alawites and Shias are based and I'm tired of pretending they're not. I see what jews are doing to Europeans right now, I see what they did to Spain just a couple months ago, really nice stunt on their part. Stop the jews and you stop the Muslim spillover, they're the ones bringing them. Same with Somalians in Minnesota with all those "Catholic" NGOs with jew-packed boards importing them.

>>4533999
>People agree your basic theory about reach is valid.
Thanks for the concession, better late than never.
>>4533999
>Panasonic is the only brand where zero cameras have AA filters
At least with them you can retrofit one.

>>4534000
We're paying gulfies to stay neutral and not destroy israel. The very lines on the map were drawn to keep them neutral. This is literally why iran is bombing them instead of bombing israel.

>>4534001
...But your theory doesn't account for the expense of actually getting that "reach" as a passable photo. And thank you for tacitly admitting you're moire spammer.

Please look outside and notice all these mirrorless cameras you say are bad, are in common use in real life and are only bad in a few incompetent test shots on dpreview. If you actually owned a camera and didn't just borrow your dads once to attempt astronomy (poorly) you'd know how easy it is to avoid false color and moire issues.

>>4533957
>Of course a paranoid schizophrenic like him isn't going to show what he's using the extra reach for, for all we know he's sneaking around in a Ghillie suit near some building he suspects of some conspiracy to enslave humanity
This is just stupid nonsense
>and put mirrorless processors connected to our retinas to fake the moon landing or some shit like that.
What do you think their endgame is? The desert of the real is coming, coppertop. I won't speculate on the technical implementation of it but AI will either enslave or exterminate humanity given enough time, and bread and circuses will shield the masses from reality. You shouldn't be so jolly ridiculing the idea. I'm not a schizo, just ahead of the curve.

>>4534004
Get a fucking job

>>4534003
>We're paying gulfies to stay neutral and not destroy israel.
Because your government is occupied by them. You also bombed children in Iran for Israel and you started this stupid war only for Israel's benefit and Trump even admitted as much to Tucker.
>And thank you for tacitly admitting you're moire spammer.
I'm not "moire spammer", schizo. I do agree with him on OLPFs and I don't cope with C1 like you do.
>...But your theory doesn't account for the expense of actually getting that "reach" as a passable photo.
That will depend on the amount of pixels on the target. A moon photo with the same lens taken with a 90D and a full frame Canon is more detailed on the 90D every time.
>Please look outside and notice all these mirrorless cameras you say are bad, are in common use in real life and are only bad in a few incompetent test shots on dpreview.
Not all shots will show every camera's flaws just like not every X-tranny shot has immediately noticeable worms or watercolor effect on the foliage. Artifacts exist and they often show up in the worst moment so why not prevent them?
>If you actually owned a camera and didn't just borrow your dads once to attempt astronomy (poorly) you'd know how easy it is to avoid false color and moire issues.
Nice fanfic

>>4534006
>using a better program is "cope"
>you have to use the shittier program
>because then my least favorite brand looks worse
>ok
>the program that has always been better is cope, it has secret AI!
>you have to use a configuration where my least favorite brand loses
No, you have to get off 4chan and start applying for jobs. Maybe when you get a job you'll also stop being a schizophrenic antisemite.

File: moirecomp.png (184 KB, 934x481)

184 KB PNG

>>4533992
>Neither camera in pic-related has OLPF. Why does the lower megapixel, smaller sensor have less intense false color given the same RAW development process?
There's probably some textures that trigger the OM and not the Sony, moire is alignment-dependent not just frequency-dependent. Here they look almost equally bad.

>>4534008
Wow you have such deep thoughts about zooming in on test charts nophoto

have you considered suicide

>>4534007
I have this thing called a vacation, I don't think Americans know what that is.
>>4534009
Oh it cuts deep doesn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7vnOC4hoY

>>4534010
You're on vacation all the time? That's called unemployed.

Get a job.

>>4534013
>all the time
kek

>the moire spammer is the retarded jobless nazi

File: 1751983730138.webm (3.52 MB, 576x1024)

3.52 MB WEBM

I think it's pretty funny that sonyggers and fujislugs are always the ones seething in these threads, it's like they know they have the worst two camera brands in existence but need to convince others they don't, just to convince themselves in turn. If the cameras didn't have all those problems they wouldn't be here coping and trying to justify themselves.
>>4534015
Yeah everyone who points out the obvious thing is one person

>>4534015
I'm not jobless and in fact I corrected the "moire spammer" in an earlier post where he was cherrypicking, see >>4534008

>>4534017
>>4534016
>jobless
>nazi
>indian
>zoophile
>retarded
You’re a real piece of work

>>4534016
Get a job, nazi

>>4534020
Funny how they're all lies except for nazi. I think you're mad because my tripcode made it impossible for you to claim my post as yours.
>>4534021
Should I go on the lampshade business or maybe soap?