>>4366961>>4366963>>4366965Bro Ive seen your comparisons gutted so many times it's stupid, most of them are wholly invalid.
I don't even waste time scanning film to its peak and am the one saying that resolution be damned, film is borderline pointless, but I've seen it done much better than your comparisons, many times, by different people, and had a few peeks at a negative through a loupe. They are not all conspiring together to fuck up the digital halves of their comparisons in the same way. You, just one guy grabbing random, sourceless, crap with no published, reproducible methodology on the other hand? Hard to trust. The map is the only one that comes close to reality and it's really just film not being smoothed and sharpened to death. Color separation is still a lot better and it's visibly slightly higher resolution - within the realm of an ideal 30mp difference, hurt by glass quality and operator error. If you think a drum scan is always going to be ideal, bad news, that's not real life. A car driving past can really wreck a drum scan and people sperg out over this drum operator vs that all the time.
Give it up. A shitty 5ds available is not going to outdo 6x7 any day unless the guy shooting and scanning the film is incompetent and using shittier optics, it'll only come close enough and be better for people who prefer nr/sharpening to grain. Good, very low ISO film shot, developed, and scanned as competently as possible with the best optics available will always resolve midtone and highlight detail better than a 50mp bayer shitter.
Now, an a7riv with GM glass WILL be so close to 6x9 that no one cares.
Film died outside of the motion picture industry because only the motion picture industry has time and money for the
>shot, developed, and scanned as competently as possible with the best optics availablepart. I guess it's worth no aliasing in their footage, since they always use 250d and artificial lights.
Also lol shadow DR, film has NONE.
