>>3884736>Velvia 50>consumer color negative filmYou should stop posting.
>and once digitized you're losing res due to copying a copy Have you ever actually shot and scanned film? Ever compare film under a microscope to a scan? You're not losing anything with a drum scanner. You're not even losing that much with a CoolScan.
>but stuff like microfilm Adox CMS 20 ***IS*** a microfilm that's also sold for pictorial use. You might have known that if you ever shot/developed it. And it's roughly equal to today's high rez 35mm sensors (45-61mp) on real world scenes.
>easily resolves over 500lines per mm No, it does not. 1000:1 contrast lab tests != the real world. Slash the lpmm numbers from those tests by at least half and often times more. In the case of a microfilm, much, much more. Film's resolution is directly related to detail illumination and contrast. So it resolves far more when photographing brightly illuminated B&W line art or a grated/backlit 1000:1 test rig.
>Sure it's B&W but digital sensors are just B&W with a bayer filter baked in, even if you use a monochrome sensor you've got noise and far less resolving power vs the good films Noise? You're seriously going to suggest that digital noise is remotely as intrusive on IQ as film grain? Really?
Velvia 50 is one of the best films available, and resolves as much detail as Ilford Pan F 50. And it can't win at 6x9 vs. 35mm digital. You have to go to a microfilm...Adox CMS 20...to stand toe-to-toe with digital in the same format.
>>Film lost the 'technical IQ' battle a long time ago.>Only for general purpose photography. There isn't anything else left for film. You think people are archiving books and newspapers on microfilm? It's all digitally scanned now, if not derived from the original digital files (in the case of a periodical).
>Looks like your Fuji shot is a bit out of focus too.No, film is just that soft compared to digital.
