>>4367122Here we see an example of how dishonest and spastic YOU are.
>Comparing ISO 400 on film, which I already agreed is one of the ways film loses hard - exponentiallyLeft is Portra 400's MTF curve, right is Velvia 50, both screenshots are from their respective tech sheets.
https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/e4050_portra_400.pdfhttps://www.ishootfujifilm.com/uploads/VELVIA%2050%20Data%20Guide.pdfWhere is the "exponential" loss of resolution? Do you even know what "exponential" means? Because that's not an "exponential" difference. Portra 400 is a ~65 lp/mm film, Velvia 50 ~80 lp/mm. An "exponential" difference would make Portra 6.5 lp/mm. (Note that these numbers are still line chart tests even if they're at a contrast closer to real world fine detail, 1.6:1. If you take those numbers and try to compute film's resolution in MP you're going to be sorely disappointed in the real world, because in the real world you don't hit those numbers due to various losses across the board.)
If Velvia 50 is 400mp in 4x5, then Portra 400 should be 325mp. And yet an 80mp back is within striking distance of it on resolution.
Protip: 4x5 != 400mp. Unless you're shooting Adox CMS 20 II, THEN it might hit those numbers.
>the fine details are just a lot better and more distinct."A lot"? You couldn't tell them apart without pixel peeping. Yeah 4x5 won that one, but not by much.
