>>2990439The highest Ive hit on 35mm colour neg is 90 lp/mm, which is about 28mp.
It requires min 28mp of dimensions to be resolved, but given it was colour neg (and not ektar) it is grainy and not clear that close up like digital 28mp.
Also much lower contrast and soft (but ultimately resolving power still there, just at lower contrast) at the highest frequencies.
Henrik has tested quite bit higher, but better gear than my AE-1 and 28mm/2.8 (the same setup has no issue getting a very clear 150mp on CMS 20), and more careful testing methodology, mine reflects what Id personally get out in the field so to speak.
Whatever you get, slide film will give you finer grain and a higher resolving power.
I typically find I get a good quality 50 - 65 lp/mm out of 6x7 in colour neg (~60mp), maybe about 80-100 lp/mm for slide and tabular grain b&w.
Digital video is a different beast to digital stills, only recently its been getting good, not too long ago even in modern times it was crap, shit DR, noisy, interlaced (so 540 lines for "1920x1080") - which also means fucked up motion, non square pixels (so now it becomes 1440x540 for 1 field), and doesnt even resolve that 1440x540.
Thats reduced even further when its chroma subsampled at 4:2:0, stored in shitty codec with long GOP.
Even ignoring that, aesthetically, small sensor meaning wide DoF, and wide screen was 16:9 not 2.35:1
You had to spend real big bucks to get into larger formats, and they werent even that good.
The list of problems were endless and thats only recently as less than a decade ago, film would shit all over it of course.
Then you have a long history of cinema and film making before that.
Lets take Fellowship of the Ring for example, Release date Christmas 2001, storyboarding started in 1997.
Filming started in October 1999. Can you imagine if they used available digital video technology instead?
