>>3478550>repeating the same pointsI'm sorry mate, I'm not going to keep feeding your autism. You don't even understand that motion picture is made up of individual still images. I already addressed all of your logical fallacies and you just keep doubling down and posting more images, saying "look this is nice so digital is shit"
>Your claim was that digital is superior in every way.I never said that. It's technically superior and captures much more detail in the same conditions.
>>3478558>It's simple challenge. I post film shots, you post digital shots that blow my film shots out of the water! What challenge? What "your" film shots? What are you on about? Are you seriously so mentally deficient that you think posting 720p downscaled screenshots of compressed 1080p rips of different movies shot on different formats, using different lenses, different apertures, different lighting situations will accomplish anything?
Here you go, here's a screencap of a movie that was ripped from the source, downsampled to 1080p, compressed with some codec, screenshotted, downscaled to 720p and compressed again. I don't know what camera it was shot on, I don't know what lens it was shot on. I don't know what sensitivity it was shot on. I don't know what the lighting setup was. And it doesn't matter, because you'll just call it shit anyway, post another screenshot, and if I was as deranged as you I'd do the same and we'd keep going until the end of time.
The only way this would make sense would be if we were posting side by side images captured under the same conditions.
This is why I posted
>>3478541. Everything is being lit by a single lighter, the sensitivity is 1100 and there's no visible noise. It's impossible to get the same quality using film. Do you know how I know? Because I've shot ISO 800 and ISO 1600 film before and they had very visible grain. Judging by the fact that you keep referring to development chemicals as piss bottles, I'd say you most likely haven't.
