>>4370447>>4370449Well, well, well...what do we see?
- Adox's claim of grainless 90" prints is nonsense. Even if you view at 50%, CMS 20 II has horrendous grain.
- In the real world 35mm CMS 20 II does not have 778mp of resolution. Nor 500mp of resolution. Nor 234mp of resolution. Not even close. It's roughly equivalent to a severely underexposed 5DsR RAW. Which puts it at somewhere between 40-50mp.
- Even if we were to give the benefit of the doubt to CMS 20 II, and assume that with a more finely detailed subject and better lens it would edge out a properly exposed 5DsR, at best CMS 20 II would have 50-60mp in the real world. It is no where near 234mp, much less 500mp or 2.2gp. At those numbers it would cleanly resolve the distant trees in the scan, which are mush in reality. And to achieve those numbers, grain would have to be exponentially lower. No, at best it's ~60mp and likely not even that. A 100mp GFX would demolish this film in 35mm format.
- This is still impressive for CMS 20 II. In 6x9 it would challenge a 150mp Phase One. No regular film can come close to this microfilm. On resolution, this is as good as it gets for film by a very, very wide margin.
Once again we see that filmfags and film company marketing departments grossly overstate film's resolution using irrelevant high contrast line chart tests and back-of-the-napkin calculations that have no basis in the real world. As for Henning Serger: he is not a 'specialist' whose word can be taken without evidence as his numbers here have been proven ridiculously false. I openly question whether or not he ever performed the tests he claims to have performed in his forum posts, because nothing could explain a 60mp max film producing 234mp for him.
Cue the resident filmfag with his excuses, but no photos. If film was so much better you would think he could find something other than words, forum shit posting, to prove it. But he hasn't posted anything because he can't.