>>4370963>Yes, why do they, whenever its not the same 5 shit scans you repostYou don't post anything so when exactly is that? Why can't you find a scan that proves your point? How come now 7 comparisons have gone against you? Even your precious Parkin's results are actually consistent with 50mp > 6x9 in the real world.
>your shitty canon is not, in fact, the best camera everNever claimed that it was. But it is better than your nocamera for sure.
>And you have in fact posted comparisons ITT that show film clearly resolving more and finer detail than your plasticky smooth upscaled digital messSo you can circle in red where film has more detail?
>crickets>6x7 is just not 80mp, it's most likely ~40mpfify
>All you've ever said is that "i personally am not able to shoot and scan film well enough to enjoy its full resolution"I never said that. Did you say that about yourself? Then again, apparently no one can since you can't find a 6x9 scan that out resolves 50mp...any where.
