>>4370476>Okay, based on what you have said I give 35mm adox cms20 with a proper lens at least 180mpOf course you do. Just like flat Earthers look at high altitude shots of the curve and see flat. I'm sorry you are a slave to cognitive dissonance.
>Sorry! Maybe if your examples were just a little better you would be more convincing.Maybe if you had any examples...
>60mp 35mm means 800mp 4x5 on your own wordAnd yet 4x5 barely exceeds 80mp. Huh. Almost like I know what I'm talking about...
>but muh math!!!>i pulled out a napkin and i did muh math!!!If you had any real world experience with all of these formats you would know that there are losses as you increase film's size. MF film will never be held as flat as 35mm, and LF film will never be held as flat as MF. There are also lens issues as its harder to manufacture a lens as format size increases. (One thing m43fags get right, only they overestimate its impact between m43 and FF, as well as ignore market forces which means many of the sharpest lenses are FF despite the increased manufacturing difficulty.)
Oh, and I love the sleight of hand that "film = this" based on a microfilm that out resolves every other film by a factor of 4. Velvia 50 hits ~15mp in 35mm format. Tim Parkin put 4x5 at 200mp based on Velvia's real world resolution in 35mm, but picrel shows such estimates cannot possibly be true.
>nooo it's Portra!!!Go look at the data sheet MTF graphs again. Velvia beats Portra, but not by an amount that would make 200mp possible for Velvia.
Sorry, 4x5 never hits 800mp equivalent, in fact it's typically out performed by a 150mp Phase One. Real world vs theories. Now if you put CMS 20 II in 4x5 (do they even still make it?) it would beat that Phase One. But it would never hit 800mp or even get close.
Real world vs theories.
