>>4410440Post your film prints. Let me guess, they're 8x10?
Humans, when leaning forward and squinting, can discern computer display improvements up to 600 pixels per inch. To fill an 8"x10" 600ppi display, you would need... 6000x4800. This is so close to 6000x4000 as to be imperceptible.
Although this is expressed in computer terms it does still refer to a level of detail beyond which there is no benefit. You can simply convert pixels to line pairs if digital terms trigger your gender dysphoria/knot cravings/etc.
It is also completely pointless because nobody is going to lean forward and squint at an 8x10. Under normal photographic enjoyment, it is biologically, physically impossible to tell an 8x10 made from 3000x2400 from one made from 6000x4800 (simply convert these statements to line pairs yourself if pixels trigger your gender dysphoria) without extremely careful inspection. Even in terms of "tonality", because the "tonality" is smaller than human vision can actually perceive. People would rather zoom in on a display for shits and giggles, somewhat enjoyable but also not needed.
No one needs more than 6000x4000. This is almost 1.5x the resolution of 35mm film. Larger film formats are for sampling out grain and lens blur. On digital cameras, higher megapixel numbers negligibly benefit sharpness when viewing very large prints very close and are essentially useless unless accompanied by a larger sensor size to better sample out lens blur and reduce quantum photon noise.
Sadly it takes a few college level courses to tell CONSOOMERS that companies lied to them and they're placebo effect victims!
