>>3366851>An old-school film camera can be considered to have near-infinite image resolution. Higher quality images, for those who are passionateI'm not the guy you asked to refute you, but I agree that just telling you a moron is not a good response to that. What works a lot better is proving, mathematically, that you're a moron.
First off, there is the matter of lenses. Lenses very much do not have infinite resolution. Their resolution is entirely finite, and a lot of modern DSLRs are reaching sensor resolutions that outstrip some lens resolutions. Since film cameras use lenses just like digital cameras, just from this we can show that the film cannot possibly give you infinite resolution. Here is the wikipedia article on optical resolution for some more background and proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolutionBUT THAT'S NOT ALL. Even if lenses could give you infinite resolution, the film ITSELF very much cannot give you infinite resolution. The active part of a film emulsion is a tiny grain of silver halide which can be either exposed or not exposed. Thus, obviously, the resolution of film can't possibly be more than the number of grains in the emulsion. But that's just the start--any individual grain can only be *exposed* or *not exposed*. There is no in between. If a grain is exposed, it turns black on the negative. If the grain is not exposed, it does not. So to create the image, it takes many grains to make a shade of gray. It's even worse with color film, since the exposed grains get replaced with cyan, magenta, or yellow dye, so you need a bunch of little dots of color to make up a different shades.
So there's an absolute hard resolution limit of the grains, and a much lower resolution limit of actual image detail besides a pure black-on-white line that could theoretically be represented by a line of single grains, and both of those are further limited by the resolution coming out of the lens itself.
