>>4384921Film is absurdly high resolution. The issue is the amount of people that think their blurry scans are as good as it gets
OP was most likely getting 6mp lab scans from a noritsu frontier scan dual with 10 stops of dynamic range and wholly unprepared to shoot with 25mp and 15 stops of dynamic range. If you’re a lab scan fag, rescan your negatives on a camera and behold that maybe one photo every two rolls holds up to the camera.
Most of you aren’t even using sharp lenses. Like you’ll say stupid shit like “the pentax 67 lenses are SUPER SHARP!”
No. They are dogshit. MF film is capable of 100mp+ but with a really shit lens it’ll look out of focus above 25mp. Most lenses people call sharp can not even hit the nyquist limit on mediocre digitals.
The other issue is most film cameras are SLRs. Due to mirror vibrations, most DSLRs dont even hold up to 50mp unless you find a shutter speed sweet spot first or use MLU/live view. Leica stayed popular for a reason.
There’s also diffraction. If you are going for max resolution, diffraction softens film regardless of how big your negative is past f5.6-f8. Our own doghair proved this, showing details on high res peeps at 4x5 degrading from f8 on. The idea that larger formats can stop down more descends from people shooting larger formats to enlarge them less, because most photographers have always been soulless gearfags who have always hated grain because its a technical flaw.
And finally, manual focus cameras are inherently inaccurate. Even with a loupe on a ground glass you can not determine critical focus to the standards of a high resolution scan. Only an autofocus sensor can achieve that level of precision.
In the end, you can nail a 100mp film shot but doing so would require a tripod, cable release, mamiya rangefinder or
monorail rig, a small aperture but no tighter than f8, which on a 100mp worthy format like 6x9 would be thin ass DOF, and therefore, you would also require bracketing or luck.
