>>4382284Yes. Just because you cant scan for shit doesnt mean it can’t be done. Some geek got 6x7 velvia and an 80mp mfdb to fall into moire (nyquist limit) and nada (lines to solid gray) at the same resolution. If you cant manage that on a map of all things, perhaps you cant shoot or perhaps you cant scan. People with better kit have distinguished 1px line pair details in 750mp scans. But it’s film, so acutance is almost nothing by then and you can see actual holes in the image.
Film has its flaws but lacking absolute detail is not one. Like in that tire test you fucked up. You cropped the film twice as much to get the test subject the same size, and it still had more fine detail. That was funny. Guess you were too mad at the grain to notice. Whats also funny is the impracticality involved in both shooting and scanning at that level. Using a 150mp phase one camera for a multi shot copy rig.
Just take the L. As it turns out the second worst high resolution DSLR is not a perfect replacement for a superior format. You really need a gfx100 for that. You should really stick to saying film is too impractical, light hungry, and hard to get modern quality equipment for. After all don’t you see the absurdity? Film beats digital cameras by being scanned with better digital cameras. A single shot 150mp scan of a MF negative is the most anyone wants because its more useful than discerning the faintest details hidden in grains. In that case why not take the photo with the same 150mp camera in the first place, right? Don’t you get it?
You were almost right, but consistently for the wrong reasons, by focusing on invalid resolution tests and pretending better scans never happened. Because how could anyone rake a photo of a document better than you did amirite
Don’t deny reality too hard now. Or bring up muh contrast, when this contrast is also on your gay map. Also you might be blind because you think scanner sharpening artefacts = resolving grain.
