>>4362189Uh, yeah, 6x7 = 80mp
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/You can repost all your tiring childish screeching about unmentioned, hidden scaling algorithms and 3 well respected men with $20k+ (EACH!) invested into high end digital conspiring to screw over digital but the facts hold true.
6x7 actually has slightly superior detail resolution than an expensive ass 80mp phase one. When the digital camera can no longer resolve details, it generates entirely new ones. The film test sheet has a more believable transition into "indistinct". When your eyes cant see something its just a spot without details, not a rainbow maze where the converging lines start diverging.
Digital does some things "better" than film at the pixel peeping level. CFA digital raws are more compatible with noise reduction and sharpening algorithms than film scans, but that's the root of why people dislike digital isn't it? The technical performance it achieves doesn't just LOOK fake, it IS fake.
It is absolutely true that a common $2000 fuji gfx100 would btfo every single film stock you can run through a 6x7, and likely equal 6x9, for most subjects, but film melts into nothing and digital has a harsh clip into aliasing so film is still being produced much to your chagrin.
Facts are facts.
You will now proceed to spam shitty posterized scans of maps and other such worthless apples to cherries comparisons. What I am posting is a proper test, corroborated by other figures in the industry, with fully disclosed methodology and a REAL professional, not a canon POS R 4chan shill, making real claims with his real name. You will never disprove it. Rather, it disproves you.
