>>4269445Open your other eye or move the exposure setting to clear the blinkies, retard. DR outside of what the sensor can record (which is itself ahead of film epxonentially) isn't really that relevant to the scene. You would be spot metering like mad with a DSLR anyways (or shoot P and go "oh wow my photos look like shit i dont notice because im not a photographer").
>inb4 NOOOO I CANT OPEN MY EYE BECAUSE MOON LANDING, BIG LENSOThe largest telescope on earth can't resolve details as small as the landing site, we need the LRO for that
2: It seems no one else has a problem, maybe because
THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHERS, AND YOU ARE A BASEMENT GEARFAG IMAGINING WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE ONE
>>4269455You aren't scanning 150mp worth of detail. You are resolving individual grains. The analog equivalent of just spreading your pixels further apart. No real improvement. GOOD and thus SLOW slide film, shot PROPERLY, and NEVER PUSHED, DAMAGED, OR EXPIRED, is close to 6k (~20mp)
https://www.filmfix.com/en/blog/35mm-film-resolution/ . Visually 20mp and 16mp are indistinguishable so it's a sensible estimate. This varies a lot even with just one stock being used because
THE RESOLUTION OF FILM IS DEPENDENT ON THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE SCENE AND LOGARITHMICALLY INCREASES WITH STRONGER HIGHLIGHTS AND HIGHER CONTRAST DETAILS.
"BUT IF IN THEORY" you shot 35mm ADOX CMOS 20 at ISO 10 with flash on a BW chart with a system with 0/minimal shutter shock (SLR with the mirror locked up, rangefinder), you would need a microscrope to scan every line resolved, BUT IN REALITY you would never do that.
The vast majority of film as-shot does not even approach 6k as shot, as processed, or as manufactured. Things like kodak gold are much closer to 10mp.
>, w 3x color depth,Absolutely incorrect. Film has been empirically proven to have less color depth and a limited gamut. ARTISTICALLY you may desire this for less realism. But TECHNICALLY, do not talk out of your fucking ass, you dumb fuck gearfag.
