>>3538785You didn't address the argument, dipshit.
The most hilarious part about all of this, is anyone can easily verify what I'm saying is true by trying to discern pixels on a full screen photo, zoomed to the pixel pitch of their monitor (typically 96dpi), viewed from 3.5 ft. away.
And even WORSE for you, is that NO ONE was able to consistently discern whether one of the photos in this thread were FF or MFT, in fact, THEY GOT IT WRONG NINETY SIX PERCENT OF THE TIME!
That has NOTHING to do with the resolution. There are so many other claimed benefits of FF besides JUST resolution, that if the claims of the vast superiority of FF were true, they should EASILY be able to tell the difference, even at 1244x933, and even with tiny 1px diagonal lines spaced 100px apart.
You have been shown to be an utter fucking idiot, who's claims of FF's real world superiority are so blatantly false that it's embarrassing you even keep posting here.
You didn't prove your point about human visual acuity, and in fact STRENGTHENED my argument against you with your own posts. I've demonstrated conclusively, using your own math and that of your favored source that no one except people with the absolute best human vision in the world could tell the difference between 72dpi and 300dpi at 5 feet for an average photo of typical subject matter.
No one with half a brain would think you've made a good point in this thread, or any other. You're insane. You're idiotic. You're a typical gookposting retard.
