>>4370168>web 1.0 mess contradicts 3 other peopleAnd why does it contradict 3 other people? Scanning differences. Why do your tests contradict 3 other people? Scanning differences.
The man's specialty is clearly analyzing the spectra of rocks, not scanning film, and it's not like he was ever an expert heidelberg tango operator nor like he was scanning with the HR MF gear of the day.
That's why Henning (actual photography speicalist) did his tests with projectors, the highest end scanning gear of the 2000s was still inconsistent, expensive, and lost a lot of resolution from operator to operator and day to day.
Film scanning is a tldr subject and a lot of people called films death early because they did not have the expertise or equipment to consistently scan film with more DR or resolution than a nikon d200. Today, if you're not investing around 2 grand into a film scanning rig, it's still unlikely you're going to scan film with more DR or resolution than a nikon d200.
But when someone does their tests with modern mirrorless scanning gear instead of "my flextight x5 is totally 9000 DPI, it better fucking be i mortgaged my house" gear, they can get film to do better for resolution, like that 10k ppi drum scan clearly outdoes 50mp ff and might even equal 100mp mf in some situations:
At ISO 25 to 100, with 8 stops of DR on the film stock itself, and maybe 250 (vision3 only).
And not in the shadows.
And not for contour/edge sharpness. Distinct details yes, but film does not resolve hard edged details. Without really ugly AI, it can not. This is why people keep shooting 6x7 instead of 100mp fujiblad and calling digital unnatural/sterile.
Whats your problem exactly? Why do you get so angry if a shitty canon isn't the best camera ever? A shitty canon sits somewhere between 645 and high ISO 6x7, and low ISO 6x7, but also underneath the A7RIV and V, D850, Z7II, A7RIII, A7RII, and A99II. Mostly your confusion seems to stem from how perceptually small 50mp to 80mp is.
