• borkborkbork@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    pointing to the problems of the 90’s and 00’s is hilariously bad comparison. those devices were 320x200 or 640x480, not HD, 4k etc.

    it’s facile and stupid to compare these as if they’re the same thing; and furthermore, the form factor and ability to disable to recording light - no, it’s not nearly the same fucking thing.

    creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Fucking lol.

      What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.

      I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?

      (edit, this is literally 90 years old)

      creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.

      How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.

      To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.

      • borkborkbork@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        you dumbfuck, I’ve been photographing on film since the 80s. I spent ages doing just black and white hand developed large format photography. to answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -

        perfectly exposed? where the developer didn’t need to push or pull? the resolution is incredible. off a spy camera like a minox? well that depends on if it’s a 8x11mm or 35mm, but the aperture is so tiny, restricting the amount of light on the negative that resolution isn’t really a concern.

        NONE OF THIS CHANGES YOUR STUPIDITY, YOU GODDAMN TOOLBAG. keep working for the creeps