>>4355879>35mm has about 6mp of resolutionlol
lmao even
velvia is 160lp/mm, but film is infinite resolution, so this means it has infinite resolution with absolutely no limit and this limit is on resolving detail which is 160 lines per mm
do you know what that means?
in 1mm, it can resolve 160 line pairs according to the test conditions
in order to try replicating this with a digital sensor you'd need at MINIMUM 320 pixels to display 160 line pairs, ideally more, like 4x or 8x
this means at just 320 pixels to capture that 160 lp/mm that's 11,520x7680 minimum
not bayer either, 3-sensor or greyscale
also to avoid aliasing and moire you'd need to ensure you're oversampling so take this number and at least double them so now you're looking at literally
23,040x15,360 just to match 35mm velvia 50, somewhat competently
remember film is literally infinite
it never has issues with moire/aliasing but fine details too fine for capture simply fade into the low contrast pit of grain, which is vastly different from finite sampling limitations resulting in artifacts
infinite resolution doesn't mean infinite detail
but it means whatever detail it can capture isn't plagued by a lack of sample points
film basically guarantees your capture medium (film) will be limited only by your lens
with digital even with a kit lens your sensor is a limit
you run into moire and all kinds of shit all the fucking time and people wearing stripes are your worst nightmare even with a 24mp sensor with an AA/OLPF filter unless you're at f/16 or have a diffusion filter over your lens
>Dynamic range is miles ahead with digitalthis is also a marketing lie
>if you take unlimited bracketing into accountthis isn't, but also isn't viable for most shots
>>4355857is right about everything
but forgot to mention
film is expensive and most don't have time for it
