>>2663957They didn't. That's in your imagination. People shot negative and slide depending on use. The main decision towards slide would typically be the tonal range and color rendering of a particular film stock. For color accuracy. Not because "omg its (whatever)"
>>2663958>They have those lenses in application for medical and aerial imaging already. They exist.Then show us one.
Microscopes don't count. Short focus distances like that don't have to deal with the effects of our environment, with distance haze or anything like that (aerial lenses do have to contend with this, and tend to do so through filtration afaik)
Even were it possible, you don't want that many megapixels. You know the focal length/1 rule? That rule is already losing relevancy to higher MP count sensors. I don't think you understand how incredibly prevalent shake will be on 250mp.
There's really no reason to be excited by this.
