>>4371601>hey! it looks equal here. we did it!>wait...film at 33%...>not like this filmschizos...not like thisAt 33% the film scan is actually a bit sharper, but you would normally apply a little sharpening to the 5Ds file which takes sharpening exceptionally well and would pull ahead on that metric even at a 3:1 disadvantage.
Discussion of the scan:
https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/18if5vm/trying_400_megapixels_scans_on_several_film/Scan crop:
https://files.catbox.moe/olei6w.jpgTrain shot RAW on a Canon 5Ds + 24-70 f/2.8L mark II @ 35mm f/8 1/160 hand held at ISO 800. All sharpening and NR were disabled, RAW opened in PS, then scaled directly to 20,310 width using Preserve Details with NR at 0.
That film scan is a top notch camera scan of film, and compares favorably to a high end drum or HXY scan. Kudos to the photographer who shot and scanned it. But it is not 400mp. 33% of 50mp = 16.5mp. That's actually a bit better than I would expect for C200, but in line with a realistic assessment of film vs. digital IQ.
Cue the crying, the denial, the excuses, the samefagging...oh god, the samefagging...the lies, and the childish shutdown. All from one schizo who won't stay in a single thread because he loses and has to shit up other threads.
For the schizo, that's:
Digital: 8
Schizo: 0
Schizophotos: 0
Note: you don't shoot film for any of this autistic shit. Shoot it for a unique rendering. For old cameras. To work in the darkroom. As an additional creative outlet. To try new things. Most people don't need 60" prints. A 35mm camera and 2,700 ppi scanner can make great 8x10s, even stretching to 16x20 with a little post work, and works fine for social media. Enjoy film. Just don't be a nophoto schizo.
