>>4357688>film: zooms in on the least detailed, darkest park>digital: applies NR and sharpening, broad daylight>film: unprocessed>digital: processedWonderful comparison (not). The best part is, film still looks better. The colors and rendering are amazing. The canon look like an iphone 15 pro max after a run through topaz. You're zooming in on the tire because that's the part where the plasticky NR looks the least bad. On more demanding subjects than rubber and paint the difference is very clear especially with regards to color separation.
Imagine using ACR defaults to compare to an unprocessed scan. So insecure.
50mp and the equivalent of non-bayer 80mp should actually be close IRL unless the details are fine enough for aliasing. That is what is sad about your argumentative nature. They are not far off. It's like comparing a 24mp camera to a 40mp camera in terms of scale. You need a full doubling of the megapixel account to actually have noticeably more resolution so a slight difference in resolution should not be surprising. On most subjects it should be hard to tell 80mp film and 50mp digital apart unless looking for aliasing or "the digital look" (harsher DOF falloff, ugly colors, tasteless post processing). Films advantage is the superior aesthetics of large format lenses and grain looing nice.
Every comparison you post is consistently invalid. Why can't you accept that kasson, herger, and parkins proved you wrong and did not, in fact, conspire to "screw over muh cannot pos 5ds"? All of them are actually well invested into high end digital systems and have no motivation to lie whatsoever - if they were mentally ill and regretted the money spent, they would actually be motivated to lie in favor of digital. Their tests consistently show that properly used MF film is as good as 80mp digital with aliasing traded for grain (which is objectively pleasing to the eye). That's what you're so mad about.
