5222 Double-X in HC110

[ChrisPlatt]

I just picked up some Eastman 5222 35mm film, my first.

I'd like to expose at 200 and develop in HC110.
Massive Dev Chart lists 5 minutes in HC110 Dilution B.

I'd be more comfortable with a longer development time.
Need recommended starting point for HC110 Dilution H.
Also has anyone out there tried this combination?

TIA,
Chris

 

[Truzi]

I've not tried the combination, but have tried HC110 (not dilution B). As I understand it, you can use a higher dilution to extend the time.

Here is the usual link for posts asking about HC110 (though I get the impression you have been to the site already):
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

I have read somewhere that increasing time for higher dilution is fairly simple (at least to get a starting point):

With this developer, development time is roughly proportional to dilution

There are few examples listed.

 

[Xmas]

I model kodaks data sheet time for D96 for 5222 like D76 1+1 and get to the time for the Microphen by comparing the ratio of the times in D76 1+1 with times for Microphen for some other film.

Seemed to be ok.

D96 is close to D76 1+1 but replinisted.

5222 is soft working even if you are scanning you should be ok with to long in soup.

Never been confident about massive chart times.

5222 is nice film

 

[chrchr]

I've done a lot of Double X and HC110.

My time for dillution H is 14 minutes at 20c. I've also done dillution B for 6:30. The results look good to me, for whatever that's worth.

Lately I've settled on 1:50 -- i.e. dillution E for lazy people -- for 12 minutes at 20c.

 

[Truzi]

I model kodaks data sheet time for D96 for 5222 like D76 1+1 and get to the time for the Microphen by comparing the ratio of the times in D76 1+1 with times for Microphen for some other film.

Seemed to be ok.

D96 is close to D76 1+1 but replinisted.

5222 is soft working even if you are scanning you should be ok with to long in soup.

Never been confident about massive chart times.

5222 is nice film

Good idea for the cross-referencing. I've done that a few times, I think for Rollei Retro 400s.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Double-X (Eastman 5222) is designed for printing on high contrast positive film. Therefore the Kodak ISO ratings are intended to produce a lower CI index than is normal for still films. I rate this film at an EI of 400 and develop it in HC-110 1+49 for 8.5 m at 21C. If you use an EI of 200 and develop it for a CI of 0.65 as is usual for still films your negatives will be denser than normal.

 

[j-dogg]

Is it possible to find Double-X in 120? I would love to put some through my RB

 

[leicarfcam]

Is it possible to find Double-X in 120? I would love to put some through my RB

Double XX is a motion picture film in 35mm so you won't find it in 120/220

 

[timor]

I just picked up some Eastman 5222 35mm film, my first.

I'd like to expose at 200 and develop in HC110.
Massive Dev Chart lists 5 minutes in HC110 Dilution B.

I'd be more comfortable with a longer development time.
Need recommended starting point for HC110 Dilution H.
Also has anyone out there tried this combination?

TIA,
Chris

Start with 10 min, 20C (68F) in dilution H. This material is my basic film and HC110 is a basic developer for it. If you interested in more detail about developing this film in that developer PM me.

 

[Xmas]

Double XX is a motion picture film in 35mm so you won't find it in 120/220

The nearest is a variant in 70mm if you have 70mm back or a splitter...

 

[frobozz]

The nearest is a variant in 70mm if you have 70mm back or a splitter...

I can't find any evidence that Kodak has ever offered 5222 in 65mm or 70mm. I'd love to be proven wrong, because I have a slitter that would cut it down to 120 size ;-)

Duncan

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think there is some confusion. No Kodak made cine film is ever available in a non-cine format. Kodak made an aerial film called Double-X in 70 mm format. Despite the same name this film and Eastman 5222 are NOT the same film. Kodak is quite specific in that their cine films are designated as Eastman and not Kodak. Any Eastman film with a designation 52nn (where nn is any two digit number ) is 35 mm and with a designation 72nn is 16 mm. Thus there are the two formats 5222 and 7222.

 

[Xmas]

variant:-. ...

https://www.flickr.com/groups/656147@N20/discuss/72157632126732645/

if you need. ...

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I think there is some confusion. No Kodak made cine film is ever available in a non-cine format. Kodak made an aerial film called Double-X in 70 mm format. Despite the same name this film and Eastman 5222 are NOT the same film. Kodak is quite specific in that their cine films are designated as Eastman and not Kodak. Any Eastman film with a designation 52nn (where nn is any two digit number ) is 35 mm and with a designation 72nn is 16 mm. Thus there are the two formats 5222 and 7222.

That sounds right. Based on experience with Kodak aerial films I'd come to the conclusion that (except for TMax films) Kodak uses names to indicate speed classes rather than the actual emulsion. As to whether there is any real connection between the similar named films, I don't know.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That sounds right. Based on experience with Kodak aerial films I'd come to the conclusion that (except for TMax films) Kodak uses names to indicate speed classes rather than the actual emulsion. As to whether there is any real connection between the similar named films, I don't know.

The Double-X aerographic film is a low contrast film with increased red sensitivity to cut thru haze. Very different in formulation from Eastman 5222. IIRC Kodak at one time also produced another film called Double-X which was available in sheet format.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Super XX I believe. It had (and has) a loyal following, and I think that reputation is a lot of the reason for all the initial interest in 5222. Again, probably not much real connection between the two. I think Super XX was dropped for environmental reasons at the time manufacturers were eliminating Cadmium (and probably other components) from their formulas. Demand was probably too low to be worth reformulating.

 

[cmacd123]

The nearest is a variant in 70mm if you have 70mm back or a splitter...

Motion Picture Negative is Never made in 70mm.

70mm movies are shot on 65mm stock, and then (were) printed in 70mm perfed 65mm stock. (70mm wide but with 65mm sized perfs.)

The Kodak catalogue just shows 5222 in 35mm by 400 and 1000 ft rolls.

EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 / DXN718 / 35 mm x 400 ft roll / On Core / BH-1866
CAT 1737279

Note that OTHER movie negatives are made in 65mm. for example on the previous page of the catalogue KODAK VISION3 50D Color Negative Film 5203 (yes they stopped using the EASTMAN name a couple of years ago for explained reasons) is made in

{Colour Negative ISO 50 daylight on the latest Vision 3 series}

"KODAK VISION3 50D Color Negative Film 5203 / SP332 / 65 mm x 1000 ft roll / On Core / 120KK / KS-1866
8003659" As well as 35mm
"KODAK VISION3 50D Color Negative Film 5203 / SP718 / 35 mm x 1000 ft roll / On Core / BH-1866
8003667" the 8003667 number is the famous Kodak CAT number and they are available for order quantifies as low as one roll. I won’t copy the price as it has probably already gone up this year.

 

[Adam W]

I've done a lot of Double X and HC110.

My time for dillution H is 14 minutes at 20c. I've also done dillution B for 6:30. The results look good to me, for whatever that's worth.

Lately I've settled on 1:50 -- i.e. dillution E for lazy people -- for 12 minutes at 20c.

Is this for shooting the 5222 at ISO 250?

 

[chrchr]

Is this for shooting the 5222 at ISO 250?

I shoot at 400.

 

[Adam W]

I shoot at 400.

How do you compare it at 400 to Tri-X and HP5?

And how long to you recommend for EI 250 and dilution E?

Thanks

 

[chrchr]

It's not as contrasty as Tri-X to my eye and the exposure latitude isn't nearly as wide. The grain is similar to Tri-X. I haven't tried to expose at 250.

I am not an expert on this at all, but others have pointed out that in cinema applications the final product is printed on reversal film which will boost the contrast, so exposure at 250 might not be quite right for stills.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

According to Kodak RMS granularity measurements Tri-X is rated as fine while 5222 is rated as very fine.

 

[KenR]

I have been using 5222 in D96 - 6 minutes at 68 degrees. Grain seems similar to TriX and so clearly greater than T-grain films. Nice tones, but for me the pain of rolling my own isn't for me.

 

[Ashfaque]

Hi Chris,

I don't have this film. But Robert from NL has some nice examples at ISO 250 with dilution B.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/21979147849/in/dateposted/
Perhaps you can ask him.

Also, check rangefinder forum's long running thread on Double-X.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[Xmas]

It's not as contrasty as Tri-X to my eye and the exposure latitude isn't nearly as wide. The grain is similar to Tri-X. I haven't tried to expose at 250.

I am not an expert on this at all, but others have pointed out that in cinema applications the final product is printed on reversal film which will boost the contrast, so exposure at 250 might not be quite right for stills.

Contrast and toe speed are not one for one dependent.
Toe speed is film dependent only alters a little by different development.
Contrast can be altered by development significantly.
5222 is like plus-x on steroids, if you wanna wet print 250 ISO.
The cine people still put a dome meter on the leading actors nose.
If they use 250 to wet print you need to as well.
There are more film chips and dust on plus-x.
It used to be cheap per foot.