>>4343428>butt hurt film zealot making mft users look saneAre you going to shit up every thread on the board now?
Here are the posts you're lying about.
>>4343982>>4343992>>4343990And here's your "win" where you need 4x5 or an ISO 20 B&W microfilm with special developer in 6x7 to pull ahead of a MFDB.
>>4344018And here's proof that those guys fucked up the line chart test because the MFDB comes much closer to 4x5 in the real world than it did in their "test".
>>4344020>muh special MTF lens bought for the test!I used a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX (pre-ART) at f/5.6 for the 5Ds map contribution. I can't speak to the lens used in the 6x9 sample. But I can say the 6x9 scan is about the best you can expect for 6x9 Velvia on a drum.
>muh mirror slap shutter button!You're an idiot if you think anyone contributing to the map test failed to use mirror lockup and remote shutter release. There is no camera shake blur in any of those photos.
>but soft grain and blocked up colors have SOVL!!!If you wanted to actually argue for film, you would post shots where film produces a unique rendering of color and tone. That's why it's still worth it to sometimes shoot film. Not "muh Bayer misunderstanding" or "muh high resolution microfilm." Attached example is a flatbed scan of a 6x6 Velvia 50 frame from a test of both (yes it's cropped so not square). The TLR lens is good not great and flatbeds leave a lot on the table, but that's not the point. The point is what Velvia does with the color.
That's not to say you can't have great color/tone rendering with digital. Digital gives you the freedom to craft your image however you like, and is capable of everything from very flat and neutral to soft pastels to Ken Rockwell Velvia tier saturation. But film is another creative outlet with a unique look. THAT'S why it's worth it to still shoot film sometimes. Not your child like insistence that your dad...I mean your film...can beat up my dad...I mean digital.
