>>3808446>35mm is not of comparable resolution, of course it isnt. You just admitted "of course the comparison is invalid." A 5D mark II is a 35mm format sensor, so comparing it to 4x5 film and looking for berries, then thinking that says something about Bayer, is utterly and completely pants on head retarded. (Hint: if you could clearly see a berry but it was purple or brown instead of red, THAT would be a color assignment failure. If you can't see the berry at all it's probably because your reference is 4x5 which is equivalent to over 100mp FFS.)
>But it makes you wonder, if 47,000 bucks aint enough, what is for a digislug?The IQ180 shot is comparable to the 4x5 shot.
>>3808447>muh tones!The obscenely cropped section is dominated by greens and yellows in both. The tiny parts that are true brown are brown in both. By comparison to the digital shot, the film has more red and yellow in the highlights but more blue and green in the shadows. You're calling darker yellows "brown" which they are not.
This adjustment is closer but PS's default balance tool doesn't have enough separation between shadows and highlights for a perfect match (I would have to mask it and I'm not putting that much time into it). So as you pull the highlights closer to how the film renders them, you pull the shadows off, and vice versa.
Point is Bayer didn't screw up any where. The differences are differences of color balance/profile. Ironically the ooc digital shot is probably closer to reality than whatever film they used, yet you think it's "wrong."
