I know, I never said you did, that's how the site works.
If you’re getting downvotes, then maybe you’re earning them?
People see a random blog link and think it's an authority, that's pretty much all there is to it.
More incorrect assumptions?
I think you mean you misunderstood something I wrote again even though it was clear the first time.
It doesn’t really matter if film is soft.
It does for what I was talking about.
If there’s aliasing or ringing or sizzling in the digital source, it can be visible on film even if it’s blurred more by the film.
No one has ever claimed this was wasn't true.
Once aliasing is introduced during sampling, blurring doesn’t necessarily make it go away,
No one claimed this an neither of these have to do with anything I've said.
and in some cases extra blurring can make aliasing worse and more visible.
Technically it would lower the frequency of the noise.
You still aren't distinguishing between different types of aliasing. Sampling for visibility and coverage from the camera is different from sampling for coverage of shadows.
You keep writing as if all aliasing is the same when pixel filters are going to be doing a weighted average of the samples from camera, which themselves could be aliasing from other sources.
That said, I think your claim that 2k by 1k is too sharp for 35mm film is also just plain wrong.
It's not. I've run wedges of pixel filters, different sizes and seen them laser printed to film.
Have you done this?
People can and did tell the difference between pixel filters on film,
Again you keep misunderstanding what I've said. Someone going in cold with no other information is not going to be able to look at a film print and know what pixel filter an image was rendered with, the information isn't there any more.
You’re wrong about this, making weird bad assumptions,
Nope. Your posts are full of giant red flags like not distinguishing between multiple types of aliasing and never hearing "2k resolution".
I'm not even sure what your point is other than replying to say I'm wrong about something I never said.
Show me some evidence. Show me laser printed and laser scanned 35mm film at 2k resolution and let's look at the edges.
Remember, all I originally said was that the vast majority of time someone will just want to use a gauss filter, because it looks good, has no negative lobes and the image will be softened more by the process anyway.
Why are you talking about “going in cold”? Who said anything about going in cold with no information? It is you who’s misunderstanding.
I don’t know why you decided to challenge my story, my experience, and every single point here to death. My first reply to you was mostly agreeing with your original take on Gaussians as I prefer them too, based on how good they are at getting rid of aliasing. But I wanted to give that a little industry color and history that isn’t visible to outsiders. Gaussians are visibly softer than other filters, the antialiasing properties come at the expense of sharpness, the softness is visible on film, and while the majority of the time any given random person might be best off with a Gaussian if they haven’t studied pixel filters, professionals sometimes prefer slightly sharper filters even if they might trade it for slight amounts of ringing or aliasing.
challenge my story, my experience, and every single point here to death.
If you say things that aren't consistent or don't make sense someone may say that it doesn't make sense.
People can prefer whatever they want, it doesn't mean a half pixel blur is going to be visible on 35mm film where edges are multiple pixel gradients.
Again, show me some evidence. I see people make claims about the resolution of 35mm film all the time, but when it comes time to show edges anywhere close to a render it never happens.
I know, I never said you did, that's how the site works.
If you’re getting downvotes, then maybe you’re earning them?
People see a random blog link and think it's an authority, that's pretty much all there is to it.
More incorrect assumptions?
I think you mean you misunderstood something I wrote again even though it was clear the first time.
It doesn’t really matter if film is soft.
It does for what I was talking about.
If there’s aliasing or ringing or sizzling in the digital source, it can be visible on film even if it’s blurred more by the film.
No one has ever claimed this was wasn't true.
Once aliasing is introduced during sampling, blurring doesn’t necessarily make it go away,
No one claimed this an neither of these have to do with anything I've said.
and in some cases extra blurring can make aliasing worse and more visible.
Technically it would lower the frequency of the noise.
You still aren't distinguishing between different types of aliasing. Sampling for visibility and coverage from the camera is different from sampling for coverage of shadows.
You keep writing as if all aliasing is the same when pixel filters are going to be doing a weighted average of the samples from camera, which themselves could be aliasing from other sources.
That said, I think your claim that 2k by 1k is too sharp for 35mm film is also just plain wrong.
It's not. I've run wedges of pixel filters, different sizes and seen them laser printed to film.
Have you done this?
People can and did tell the difference between pixel filters on film,
Again you keep misunderstanding what I've said. Someone going in cold with no other information is not going to be able to look at a film print and know what pixel filter an image was rendered with, the information isn't there any more.
You’re wrong about this, making weird bad assumptions,
Nope. Your posts are full of giant red flags like not distinguishing between multiple types of aliasing and never hearing "2k resolution".
I'm not even sure what your point is other than replying to say I'm wrong about something I never said.
Show me some evidence. Show me laser printed and laser scanned 35mm film at 2k resolution and let's look at the edges.
Remember, all I originally said was that the vast majority of time someone will just want to use a gauss filter, because it looks good, has no negative lobes and the image will be softened more by the process anyway.