Fuck this shit

yea, i just cant believe people who are smart these days, into "tech" etc.. all still worship the latest megapixel and actually do niga-pixel reviews about their quality and shit.

it will never ever beat analog, there is no reason in thinking its not a dead end, the digital meme.

we should have looked into some sort of analog internet for media, like fiberoptic lines with amplifiers and shit, like sky-captain world of tomorrow kind of thing

let the digital shit be used for number crunching and absolutely nothing to do with media and creativity.

>the digital compressed shitfile beta vs. the analog infinite perfection and detail chad

>reality captured on matter
>
>uhm, ok. thats a 1.. thats a 0,... thats a 1.. and uh.. thats a 0!!!

Yes it's all true the juden have been decreasing the resolution of our reality

no, they have merely profited off of people accepting the decreased resolution of their reality

sad state of affairs for sure.

Good thing you don't want to share the photo because then you'd have to mail everyone the photo instead of just sending a JPEG

Attached: aBojLoQx_700w_0.png (700x689, 180K)

yes, because we built the foundation of the internet on a digital base.

instead of moving from analog transmissions of sound/television, to better systems of analogous, self hosted and connected higher capacity systems..

we all decided its best to take the information, and quite literally kill it, and speak of it as we thought it once was.

>bitrate
>megapixel
>240/480/640/720/1280..../.././/.//p p p pp p

How much of that reality did ya say ya wanted goy? did ya buy the latest monitor/internet bandwidth plan??

BETTER UPGRADE!

digital. the greatest scam every conceived.

YO DAWG U GOT DAT 8K REALITY INTERPRETER YET??

FUCK DAWG SO MUCH BETTA THAN THAT GAY ASS 4K SHIT

FUCK ALMOST LIKE WATCHIN A FUCKIN REAL FILM DAWG.. ALMOST LOL HAHA

YO HOW BOUT THAT 16K THO??

>FROM MILLIMETER FILM TO MILLIMETER WAVES TO SEND BETTER INTERPRETATIONS OF SAID FILM

SAD STORY INDEED GRANDPAPPY

makes sense, this is why old shit is better and baby boomers are smart as hell even though they pretend to be retards

>megapixels is the quality of the photo
Retards need not to apply.

I see no barn in your picture

Did you know that digital cameras don't compress shit and actually hold more information in them than a negative film? Or are you literally comparing your mobilephones camera to film DSLR?

This thread was at like 5 posters until you replied. I think OP is overdosing on some strong shit.

48Mpx with pixel-shift is the most we will ever need

change my mind

>and here is the proofs

>the human eye cant see more than 1080p
>we should use file with molelcule sized details
also, OP, please tell me what lens this photo was taken? most old lenses couldnt resolve more than like 18MP, and I am fairly positive they couldnt resolve 40MP

so the pont of film is what, to catch all the imperfections in old shitty lenses? cool dude. also your story is obviously made up bullshit

So just use modems over fibre?

>the human eye cant see more than 1080p

Attached: 1298976074732.jpg (345x300, 26K)

good thread

you could make a decently sized scan of the picture you are talking about
something like 100MP
so we all can look at the ants legs

imagine actually believing this

> After taking the first magnifying glass to the picture, suddenly it had more resolution than the best digital camera on the market today
Absolute delusion. They couldn't do what a 40-100 mp camera can do now.

It's not even just the sensor, the optics in front of it also were unable to do photos thos well in the past.

You're just using some crap and being nostalgic about the past, which was not necessarily always terrible but also never as good as digital cameras today.

Attached: cb77677897b3220ef7af39a16c92ca0d.jpg (1200x470, 71K)

>and could could the legs on the ants
what did he mean by this

>fiberoptic lines with amplifiers and shit
You mean the exact technology that is powering the internet right now?

This is what happens when retards take LSD.
They think they've across some great realization, when in reality they're confounded by just the surface level understanding of an subject.

This. Lenses are a far more important factor.

digital shits on film if you build the adequate chip
tiny handheld cameras with a 2mm wide cmos arent gonna capture shit no matter the resolution

this is the same type of people that buys into audiophile bullshit

It's a way for them to feel superior without, ya know, actually *doing* anything.

film isn't all that great. It has a grain, which for b&w is the size of the silver crystals iirc. Anyway, you don't get infinite resolution just because it is analog. If you stick a negative on an enlarger and start blowing it up enough, for example a 35mm to poster size you really see the grain of the film. A 200mm negative can be blown up a long way though. Also the speed of the film (how sensitive it was to light) had an effect of grain size.

So I call gentle bullshit on OP, no way was he seeing the legs on ants.

I think if you were to go out and buy a modern prosumer or professional camera from Canon or Nikon, it is gong to do a lot better than film ever could.

>not compressed
>digital

im sorry you lack basic understanding

this, p-tards love their p's

>i dont understand all of the information raw law can encode into raw matter, therefore digital is better

brainlet

Remember, film is fucking tiny and yet projected onto theatre-sized screens.
An ordinary 35mm film has a resolution somewhere around 32k.

It's always weirding me out to find out how modern tech is actually a regression of older tech.
And the amount of regressions at this point is fucking ridiculous. The quantity over quality mentality, where everything has to be OK and short-lived has fucked over society.
Interactive software should be latency-optimized. Digitalizing analog media should involve actually capturing ALL of the data before you fucking throw away the original. Hardware should be repairable. Well-written manuals should be a thing.

muh strawman, muh ad hominem, muh muh

this post is good. he understands.

> muh magnifying glass
> muh phone doesn't capture perfect pixels 0.5+ miles away from source photo location
> what are lenses?
> what is DSLR?
Just because you're too poor to afford a camera which is capable of resolutions and depth-of-field far superior to technology that would have realistically cost you millions of dollars "back in the day" doesn't mean digital is sub-par. You just don't know all the intricacies to such modern equipment because you didn't grow up with the analog of yesteryear. You're just going off what you "know" of the past and applying it to a weak interpretation of what's available now in the present; and by extension, available in the future.

This is the only important answer considering real optics and how you translate an image from a digital camera to a photo.

You're still buying an APS-C or 35mm camera which are always inferior to Medium or Large Format film cameras. MF digital sensors are very impressive but cost a fortune.

Come to if you want to see this discussion every day!

>the raw format has even more binary data!
>you're too poor to understand this

oh we know sir, we know.

>come to my dead board so you can have a discussion every week if you happen to find someone active in the thread you are replying to in that that timeframe

Yea, uncompressed RAW is a thing on any decent camera, even if not a necessarily useful one (because even the compressed variant is chosen so pros don't really loose anything important in pretty much all instances).

point is that you can call it "raw" all you want, it is just less compressed digital garbage.

OP here
You won't believe what I saw next, when I added another magnifying glass!
>add third magnifying glass
>look up to one of the workers crotch
>I..is this a boner..?
>look closer
>squint my eyes
>focus magnifying glasses
>yes! It's a boner!
Then I took picture to bathroom with myself
After some fun time, came back and decided to use my microscope on the photo, just how much detail I can see:
>put photo under 3 magnifying glasses, under microscope
>see dandruff on other guy's head
>zoom in on dandruff
>it's actually lice
yikes!

Japan launched an 8K TV channel last year.
There's literally NO content in that resolution, so one of the first things they shown was... Space Odyssey from 1968, which was shot on 65mm tape.

While you have a point, it seems to me you've never worked in any large corporation that provides these commercial products that the mainstream user consumes. It's a completely different world where deadlines and "first to market" concepts dominate proper engineering. You're VERY lucky to find a company that demands quality over quantity simply because quantity in this modern market makes more money, and that's the bottom line of a company. Labor is one, if not the most, costly expenses of a company. If the labor is not producing a product that far outweighs the cost of paying them to make it, then you're destined to fail. It's the sad reality that most people here either ignore blissfully or don't understand.

Sure, I'd love to re-architect how my company's IPC functions, how our menu's receive data in a managed environment (coming from an unmanaged one), how logical processes handle their own data. However, I can't, because the business direction demands that we sustain what's already created rather than tackling the technical debt added by my predecessors. Refactoring doesn't, in the executives eyes, affect the bottom line. Sales of new products do. So refactoring never happens. New abstraction layers are favored.

Raw law? Wat. Your past simply didn't have the lenses to do a high resolution shot.
> Inb4 you were doing pinholes of the perfect size for however long it takes.

Also, photographic substrates suck more than cmos sensors and the like, yes. The grains are not exactly perfect photon state savers, its just some shitty arbitrary sized grains with comparatively less color sensitivity and a weird distribution that can't generally match a digital sensor's orderly pattern.
Plus its even more obviously flawed if you additionally scan them anyhow to edit the images and send them to customers or viewers.

OP here (this post was based, not mad!)

great example of the analog chad stomping the virgin digital cuck

thats a separate topic, and not an argument at all. we all know how the world limits things, this is about mass adoption of a dead-end reality killing "media" protocol.

/p/'s not dead!
It's just one or the slow boards because all its posters are out shooting!
It's not like they're only obsessing over gear and taking pictures of their cats, goodness no!

raw light* im literally being too based and too redpilled too quickly for my fingers to type! ( and this is based!!)

also substrates are negligible in their impact on information imprinted .

>its not dead
>the posters just aren't there!

thats the spirit sir!

>also substrates are negligible in their impact on information imprinted .
Are you using them merely as a calibration point for your time machine to send back a better digital sensor to the past?

Because otherwise, the substrate contains the entirety of the captured information that you could possibly extract. And the chemical substrates are pretty much just generally worse than CMOS sensors.

They would be worse even if they were already digital and didn't have to additionally be run through a digital sensor to get to a modern editing / publishing workflow.

no, what im saying is as long as you have real tangible matter being altered by real tangible energy, and not being compressed and interpreted into numbers.. the information is limitless as reality itself sir!

(tough concept here i know!.. but based and redpilled and worth it!)

> It's not like they're only obsessing over gear
They aren't taking enough care to use decent gear.

Low quality street snapshits all over /p/. Barely anyone has a good camera.

I guess I can be glad to be working in an internal IT department.
I actually do have the ability to refactor and clean stuff, at least to a degree. Often I even have the time for it, as we are only barely understaffed.

I would say that quality baselines and standards would be a field where government should intervene.
Unfortunately, governments have shown themselves to be completely incompatible with proper use of technology. They'd likely just fuck things up even further.

I wish there were certificates for shit like responsiveness, code availability and and patch frequency, as well as standards for shit like documentation.
I'm fucking tired of having either no documentation at all for a proprietary software or tautological documentation for open-source software.

There certainly was more information in the light before? But it wasn't captured by that shitty chemical substrate in any usable way.

It's just less color sensitive, less spatially even (you get random information density between areas), and so on. CMOS sensors capture more.

whos to say that we even know all of the information held in that substrate yet? point is, the second we assume we know everything there is, and start reducing it to digital remains, we have most certainly reached the end of the road with the information gained from that piece of matter.

catch my drift sir?

The low light sensitivity of modern sensors is pretty incredible. ISO 1000 would have been a very fast film (iirc), but a good Canon DSLR (5D Mark IV) advertises up to 32000, and can expand to 102400. I have no reason to expect that some of its competitors can't do better.

It's also been proven that writing by hand results in more parts of the brain associated with imagination and memory being activated than typing (which basically does fuck all).

How can computers even compete?

is it some 1999 banter?

man it takes me back

well i think there is certainly much more information about a persons thoughts within handwriting, but as for ascertaining words, typing might be better, not comparable to photography/media but you did bring up a good point while being contrarian.

>but as for ascertaining words, typing might be better
Just admit you can't read cursive.

You have a rather insensitive color-inaccurate setup of layered substrates.

Hoping that there is more information in there "somewhere" rather than what a very sensitive CMOS array recorded (which is theoretically capable of recording individual photons - not that in photographic usage it's exactly used that way) is basically just wishful thinking.

If anything you'll loose information over time because of chemical degradation of the film and so on unless you made it digital ASAP.

redpilled and well memed!

>If anything you'll loose information over time because of chemical degradation of the film and so on unless you made it digital ASAP.

agreed, they are like reality itself, almost living you could say.. nothing wrong with making the best copy you can that will last.. but nothing will beat the original

Film cameras on phones with immediate preview when?

You know it's coming.

>I did not take a telecommunications degree: the movie

raw file contains all pixels data. how much light it has received. Most camera manufacturers use bloodlessly compressed but also allow uncompressed files to be stored o the camera.

I say you're lying. Legs of ants on a 2inch photo is bullshit.

nah brah just add 15 more sensors lmao
nah it's ok bra 16 cameras is better than 1 anyway

Wow OP is a massive retard and clearly knows nothing about photography.

I’ve shot and developed film before, it sucks and it’s loved by shitty photographers because it lets them compensate by saying it was shot of film.
Film is noisy, digital is clean, in fact it’s almost too to clean, but bumping up the iso or adding noise in post is possible.
Film fades and so do printer photos, there is no way a 100 year old print would converse so much detail. I take a lot of 35mm film photos for fun, while the aesthetic of the results are nice the resolution is much lower because of the grain.
Also it’s the lens that is the ultimate determiner of resolution, you can have the most amazing film or sensor in the world but if the glass can’t keep up what’s the point?

I think OP is mad because he’s ugly and no one wants to take pictures of him

Attached: FECE2267-D4C0-4D59-8827-D855B69B9249.jpg (534x534, 201K)

cool story bitch

>crinkly ass paper
>old photo
>omg look at grain on the wood, faces, wrinkles amazing!

lol you dumb fucking cunt

Haven't really gotten into photography because I don't have disposable income of that magnitude
is array photography still garbage or has there been some improvements to the point where I can just add 64 shitty sensors and make a good composite?

>After taking the first magnifying glass to the picture, suddenly it had more resolution than the best digital camera on the market today, I could see cracks in their facial skin from their expressions. Literal dust on leaves of grass etc.
That is incorrect. High resolution Hasselblad medium format cameras today are able to optically limit older lenses. The Sony a7R III might even be able to do this. Furthermore, the dynamic range of these older analogue cameras is way worse, even the older analogue Leicas can't keep up with modern mirrorless fullframe cameras in terms of dynamic range.

>We were all scammed, and indoctrinated into thinking our super-giga-nigga-18-mega-trizixle cameras were getting better each year.
yeah, no. i still use my Nikon D40 with 6mp. that's all you need for high quality photos.

For all the angst about how good cameras are, maybe you should think about how bad your eyes suck. A giant hole in your retina where the optic nerve hits, you only sense in RGB (and then rods for low light). If anything cameras are compromised in their ability to capture reality so they may better capture the sliver of reality that we perceive.

Even this is overkill

>The Sony a7R III might even be able to do this.
Yes, the 40MP+ FF cameras also do. Actually even the 24MP APS-C cameras do.

The current cameras all need the high end of modern optics to perform ideally. So ideally, you'd put a lot of money into lenses.

The limit isn't *hard* though, it's not entirely useless to use an older lens on a higher resolution sensor. The lenses don't perform evenly between the center and borders anyhow, and so on.

user you just put modern film in your non-digital camera and it gets all the latest tech.

Lmao actually believing this shit

No, why? It's a good idea to have such a camera.

Sure, the smartphone users with their small screens generally won't be able to tell them apart from uncropped or slightly cropped lower resolution photos, but it's still giving you more options for computer displays and bigger.

And there isn't much of a reason not to use these devices other than price. But it's not THAT high anyhow, a few grand at most for the whole setup including computer software and storage - nothing someone from the developed world would have serious trouble to afford, it's not even as much cost as a car.

You can tell how shit film was + older optics when hipsters put them on latest cameras and it's this blurry/vignette image and they say adds character

Based physiology poster.

>zoomer pic related
oh it shows.

thanks! (and you are based too!!)
>yo check out my new ad hominem, im emotional, ya dig?
I DIG!.. DAWG!

>yo dawg.. your experience was wrong.. despite you being there.. hold up while i try to explain why i am right!

no you hold up! (sir!)

>yo dawg, check out this hole in your eye.. fuck what are you going to do.. like scan the area you wish to look at or something?? nah dawg!!!

oh come on dawg!