>>4370195>And why does it contradict 3 other people?>Scanning differences.There's nothing to contradict and there are no scanning differences because two of your people are just shit posters making naked assertions and one apparently didn't say anything on the topic since you are nolink.
>The man's specialty is clearly analyzing the spectra of rocks, not scanning filmSee how you cope? Holy fuck...a NASA imaging specialist who spends his free time on photography 'hurr isn't qualified.' Your people's specialty is pulling numbers out of their asses. NASA expert wins.
>That's why Henning (actual photography speicalist) did his tests with projectorsProve it. All I see are words in a forum. No scans, no photographs of the projection, nothing but words. Just like you.
>and lost a lot of resolution from operator to operator and day to day.You are so full of shit it's fascinating to watch in real time. The Howtek clearly resolved grain as it should. There was no error and there's nothing below grain.
>Film scanning is a tldr subjectAllow me to simplify it for you: the Howtek resolved grain. There's nothing below grain. Film lost that comparison. Want proof there's nothing below grain? Open the
high-end-scans.de HXY and drum scans of the VW Bug. Detail is the same, only the file dimensions and grain intensity are different. Why? Because there's nothing below grain, the HXY scan just did a better job resolving all the grain.
>Today, if you're not investing around 2 grand into a film scanning rigEven if you do you're not beating a Howtek and certainly not beating HXY.
>But when someone does their tests with modern mirrorless scanning gear instead of "my flextight x5"Oh look, another deception from you. The map is Howtek drum. The portrait is Noritsu. The rest are HXY. A home camera scanning rig can probably beat the Noritsu, but since the Noritsu was hitting grain, all you will see is better resolved grain. The Imacon was 35mm vs 7D, posted to jog your memory.
