4x5 5222 film

[Dennis S]

Just received this message about 5222 film supply:

Greetings Dennis;Thank you for inquiring about Kodak Double X cine film cut to 4x5. Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris have agreed to take on the challenge of cutting the cinematography film Double X into 4x5 sheet. Because of the R&D involved in this venture and the fact that Kodak has no guarantee that all the R&D will not result in more then just this one order, the cost of the film this first time out is very high. The original estimate that I put on the film was $100.00 for a 50 sheet box, and the reality turned out to be $300.00 for that 50 sheet box. Even with the film being expensive there has been a great response. Some people who originally committed to the order have dropped out. This is not surprising with the cost factor, but this is not the majority. I only need 11 more boxes to reach the minimum order quantity. (MOQ) This is a chance for us to make film history. Eastman Kodak has never cut cinemtography film into sheets before. If this goes well this time out, the cost will come down, and a new emulsion will be available to sheet film users. This is also an opportunity for us to send a message to Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris that it is good for them to think outside the box. To become involved in this co-op I need from you the following: Your shipping address, The number of boxes you want, and whether you would like to pay by credit card or by check. The $300.00 price stated earlier is the check, (cash) price. The credit card price is $309.00. With this information I can send you an invoice for payment. When I have reached the MOQ and collected all the payments for the film I will place the order with Kodak Alaris. It should take about 10 to 12 weeks from the date of order until the film arrives. Thank you for your support for special order Kodak films.Regards;Keith CanhamOwner: K. B. Canham Cameras, Inc.

 

[Cybertrash]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I've seen a lot of talk about Double X film lately, and I've never really understood what the appeal of it is compared to something like Tri-X? Does it have special characteristics of some sorts (bear in mind, I know very little of the film itself).

Anyway, it's great that Kodak are trying to introduce a "new" film product, even if the price seems a little high.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hey dances, there's already a thread about this, I actually started the whole thing, contacted Keith and we got the ball rolling, no one had ever asked before I had but it seems quite a few have gotten excited by this, it's one of Kodak's best films. Less than 10 boxes before we make the order so you better hurry

Here's the thread...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[StoneNYC]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I've seen a lot of talk about Double X film lately, and I've never really understood what the appeal of it is compared to something like Tri-X? Does it have special characteristics of some sorts (bear in mind, I know very little of the film itself).

Anyway, it's great that Kodak are trying to introduce a "new" film product, even if the price seems a little high.

Hey Cyber,

It's not so much that Kodak was trying to introduce it, it's that we collectively requested kodak do it.

And yes it does have a very special quality, it's hard to exactly describe, there's a guy who re-rolls it (Rapakpan) who you can snag a few rolls from to try it out in 35mm if you want.

It's a movie film, so it already has a fairly thick and strong base, which is the only reason Kodak could consider cutting it for sheet film.

It's the last B&W movie film Kodak still makes. It's really great for people, (since movies are often about people haha) and gives the actor a sort of "glow" it essentially seems to bump up skin tones and compresses highlights and bumps up shadows but keeps blacks BLACK which is really great.

It's rated differently for Daylight than Tungsten which tells you something right there about it's spectral sensitivity.

Anyway I used this image as the example of how it just makes people look great



But even crappy shots of goofs like my best friend (right) and I (left) look good.



Anyway like I said there's less than 10 boxes left to be ordered so there's not much time left

 

[GarageBoy]

Greaaat, now I definitely need to buy a can..
Now how to load it..

 

[Xmas]

Hi

Stone is abstract
There is a considerable number of still camera people who use it from 400 foot or 1000 foot cans.
It is a low contrast film in D76 or D96 at 250ISO.
320ISO in Microphen for 7 mins still soft working.

Some take it to 3200!

It is not tabular grain but fine for its speed nearer to plusx than trix but may be softer working than trix at 320.

It is thicker base than normal so stick at 33 frames per cassette unless in concentric cassettes like IXMOO.

It dries flat.

It may be unhappy in the hassebladpano wides cause it uses cine cam sprocket holes.

Google 5222 or Double-X

 

[Xmas]

Greaaat, now I definitely need to buy a can..
Now how to load it..

The minimalist way is

changing bag
daylight loader
100 foot cine reel
100 foot can
last two you get with normal bulk from Fuji or Agfa or buy from eBay.

load above into cbag remove tape from 5222 can and place carefully in cbag, zip up.

remove top part of can the film is on a core and taped, remove tape, and pull out end sideways thread into spool and wind unto spool keeping run from core to spool flat.

after 40 mins the spooL will be full snip with scissors load into loader close loader replace top part of 400foot can open bag and reseal can.

the 100 foot can is if you get stuck...

my chum dropped 400 foot into bath in dark be careful

 

[Dennis S]

People seem to have not read the full letter where it states 4x5 film not the 35mm bulk rolls. I have used this film before in 35mm but the cost of the 4x5 seems to be quite unreasonable. What I found was the film was good but NOT that good that I can justify a $ 309 purchase for 50 shts.

 

[Xmas]

People seem to have not read the full letter where it states 4x5 film not the 35mm bulk rolls. I have used this film before in 35mm but the cost of the 4x5 seems to be quite unreasonable. What I found was the film was good but NOT that good that I can justify a $ 309 purchase for 50 shts.

we are all sad for you.

 

[removed account4]

we are all sad for you.

?

why are you sad for him ..
lots of people don't have the $$$
to spend on the most expensive b/w film ever ..

(sorry stone)
good luck with the 11!

 

[Dr Croubie]

Yeah, $2 a sheet is ok for 4x5 B+W, at least new stock. But $6 a sheet is pushing into the territory of Velvia prices, and I know what I'd rather have for my (limited) money.

But I do hope the sale goes through and goes well, if this becomes a permanent thing then there's a chance that the price would come down. And it might convince the new Kodak/Alaris to do a yearly ULF-run like Ilford. And that's only a good thing for everyone.

 

[Xmas]

it sounded like if he were richer be might have been one if the eleven.

maybe Im wrong?

largest I have is a 67 so I don't need to consider.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, $2 a sheet is ok for 4x5 B+W, at least new stock. But $6 a sheet is pushing into the territory of Velvia prices, and I know what I'd rather have for my (limited) money.

But I do hope the sale goes through and goes well, if this becomes a permanent thing then there's a chance that the price would come down. And it might convince the new Kodak/Alaris to do a yearly ULF-run like Ilford. And that's only a good thing for everyone.

Why don't you help with just 1 box

 

[StoneNYC]

?

why are you sad for him ..
lots of people don't have the $$$
to spend on the most expensive b/w film ever ..

(sorry stone)
good luck with the 11!

Don't be sorry, I have limited funds too, I wanted 3 boxes but can only afford 1. Such is life. We are so close so just don't want to have it fall apart just before the finish line.

 

[Dennis S]

it sounded like if he were richer be might have been one if the eleven.

maybe Im wrong?

largest I have is a 67 so I don't need to consider.

Basically though I have not exposed ANY 4X5 film yet. Just waiting for a lens and a few holders before I make the plunge. I did a few 5222 35mm film but like I said it is NOT worth the extra $$ especially with Delta 100 and TMX at a reasonable prices why would I want to ? Here are some of the pics of the 35mm I used:


Nice yes but not $6 a sheet nice ;o) Yes I have been considering a 400' of the 5222 in 35 but I have to reserve my funds for a few extravagant purchases such as FOOD & SHELTER. But now having getting the LF bug who knows were this will end.

 

[StoneNYC]

Basically though I have not exposed ANY 4X5 film yet. Just waiting for a lens and a few holders before I make the plunge. I did a few 5222 35mm film but like I said it is NOT worth the extra $$ especially with Delta 100 and TMX at a reasonable prices why would I want to ? Here are some of the pics of the 35mm I used:
View attachment 80742 View attachment 80743

Nice yes but not $6 a sheet nice ;o) Yes I have been considering a 400' of the 5222 in 35 but I have to reserve my funds for a few extravagant purchases such as FOOD & SHELTER. But now having getting the LF bug who knows were this will end.

4x5 is dangerous, once you're hooked there's no where to go but bigger...

Very nice by the way, what dev did you use?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Why don't you help with just 1 box

I'd love to, but on the weekend I was changing lensboards and put a screwdriver through the blades of my 90mm SA, ended up spending $200 on a Fujinon 90 SWD as replacement, so there's my budget gone for the month. If I get any money re-flogging the SA lens elements I'll consider adding a pack of something else to the already-overflowing freezer...

4x5 is dangerous, once you're hooked there's no where to go but bigger...

Tell me about it, I'm at 20x24" and have a roll of 47" awaiting some time.
Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...

 

[Dennis S]

4x5 is dangerous, once you're hooked there's no where to go but bigger...

Very nice by the way, what dev did you use?

ID-11 @ 1-1. I really liked the look of it but why was there no 120 offered ?

(Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...) )

 

[brucemuir]

nice to see Kodak respond in a positive direction even if it is a "bit" (lol) pricey.

good luck you guys, I think you should be able to get the remaining stock spoken for.

 

[StoneNYC]

ID-11 @ 1-1. I really liked the look of it but why was there no 120 offered ?

(Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...) )

It's strictly movie film, if kodak could replace Tri-X they probably would have with this, but the tri-X fans are too die hard and not enough customer base to support it, but for movies Tri-X doesn't look right, so this worked, but cutting sheets is way easier than cutting and rolling 120 for special order, so I asked... I would totally take this in 120 if it existed, but I never got hooked on Tri-X so I'm unchained and free to seek other visions...

 

[StoneNYC]

I'd love to, but on the weekend I was changing lensboards and put a screwdriver through the blades of my 90mm SA, ended up spending $200 on a Fujinon 90 SWD as replacement, so there's my budget gone for the month. If I get any money re-flogging the SA lens elements I'll consider adding a pack of something else to the already-overflowing freezer...



Tell me about it, I'm at 20x24" and have a roll of 47" awaiting some time.
Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...

Ouch! That's never good news. Hope the sale nets you a decent amount.

Also, I've never heard of 47" hah! Is that basically a full roll uncut?

A few ULF guys complained that the Double-X wasn't being offered in 11x14 or 20x24 hah!

nice to see Kodak respond in a positive direction even if it is a "bit" (lol) pricey.

good luck you guys, I think you should be able to get the remaining stock spoken for.

Thanks! I'm sure it will happen. Just want it to be done with.

 

[Xmas]

ID-11 @ 1-1. I really liked the look of it but why was there no 120 offered ?

(Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...) )

this is thicker than normal 35mm base so 70mm perforated might have been possible if enough people wanted it.
I only use 33frames in some of my reloadables.
this is just the cost for a cut into a master roll they might not be able to sell anyway.
The cine people are all going digital...
Orson Wells Citizen Kane Rosebud... final cut privilege...

 

[StoneNYC]

this is thicker than normal 35mm base so 70mm perforated might have been possible if enough people wanted it.
I only use 33frames in some of my reloadables.
this is just the cost for a cut into a master roll they might not be able to sell anyway.
The cine people are all going digital...
Orson Wells Citizen Kane Rosebud... final cut privilege...

Problem is the network for 70mm isn't there, it's scattered, the network for sheet film is established, so better chance if it happening on sheet.

 

[mgb74]

Kudos to Keith Canham for doing this.

But I have to award Kodak Alaris the Roger Smith Management award (Roger Smith was the CEO of GM - during his tenure GMs market share dropped from 45% to 36%). The difference between $100/box and $300/box is $60,000 for 300 boxes. Even in the current depleted state of Kodak Alaris that's less than a tiny fraction of a rounding error of monthly film sales.

But what do they get for that "loss" of $60k? Well I wouldn't buy 5222 even at $2/sheet. But even so, I'd personally look at this and think that Kodak was going out of their way to support the film community and being innovative (if you can consider offering a legacy film in a new size innovative). But now I look at it and think they just want to get what they can while they can. In other words, ride this pony until it drops.

You could say that "well, that's what it costs them". But I doubt it. Sure, in a strict cost accounting process, they probably aren't making money even at $300 a box. But how much of the that cost is a) overhead and b) cost that is, in the short term, fixed (i.e. people time where there is excess capacity)? Granted, I don't know. But I strongly suspect that the $300/box was an accounting decision, not a marketing decision.

If so, that's very unfortunate and not a good sign for the future.

 

[frobozz]

Kudos to Keith Canham for doing this.

But I have to award Kodak Alaris the Roger Smith Management award (Roger Smith was the CEO of GM - during his tenure GMs market share dropped from 45% to 36%). The difference between $100/box and $300/box is $60,000 for 300 boxes. Even in the current depleted state of Kodak Alaris that's less than a tiny fraction of a rounding error of monthly film sales.

But what do they get for that "loss" of $60k? Well I wouldn't buy 5222 even at $2/sheet. But even so, I'd personally look at this and think that Kodak was going out of their way to support the film community and being innovative (if you can consider offering a legacy film in a new size innovative). But now I look at it and think they just want to get what they can while they can. In other words, ride this pony until it drops.

You could say that "well, that's what it costs them". But I doubt it. Sure, in a strict cost accounting process, they probably aren't making money even at $300 a box. But how much of the that cost is a) overhead and b) cost that is, in the short term, fixed (i.e. people time where there is excess capacity)? Granted, I don't know. But I strongly suspect that the $300/box was an accounting decision, not a marketing decision.

If so, that's very unfortunate and not a good sign for the future.

I agree completely.

I was in for 2 boxes back when it was $100/box. Now I'm out completely. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I hope this is successful, and they do it again, and the price falls. But Kodak could have helped that progression along by not trying to spreadsheet-cost-justify the entire initial run on the backs of the people ordering it.

Duncan