5222 film

[Dennis S]

Any news on how the 4x5 5222 worked out ? Saw a lot of interest and posts late last year on it but there has been nothing at all this year on the subject.

 

[wildbill]

It didn't. Just a bad idea that would have been $$$/sheet for some floppy film.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

Almost worked...

Kodak apparently had some production issues with it, in the end, it wasn't a money issue.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Almost worked...

Kodak apparently had some production issues with it, in the end, it wasn't a money issue.

I thought it was. Like in the end turned out to be 3-4x what they were first estimated.....

 

[analoguey]

Thats how I remember it, too!

 

[Xmas]

I thought it was. Like in the end turned out to be 3-4x what they were first estimated.....

Confirmed cept in range 2-3x but enough to compromise number of initial batch takers below threshold.

Two points ignored

Blue sky estimates normally 2x out compared with 24/7 estimates.

More clever people than me say number of film types and formats will shrink. Hindsight is a good teacher if you attend the lectures.

Kodaks financial reports look bad as well.

 

[Dennis S]

The price was $300 for 50 sheets did not sound like a value deal at all. I'll have to stay with the XX in 35mm.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok so since I'm the one who started the 4x5 Eastman Double-X thing (5222 is specifically the 35mm version), here's the scoop.

We asked kodak, they said Maybe but you need x boxes at $300.

So we were able to get X boxes ordered, it was amazing.

And kodak said "oh whoops, we need 3 times that many boxes "because of waste".

So after that we gave up, we couldn't get that many more orders, it's sad. And now there's information that 5222 might not be around much longer, I know they cancelled at least one of the 35mm can sizes and 16mm entirely I THINK I read that, I can't find it now... Anyone have the link?

So that's the info about the 4x5 stuff...

 

[StoneNYC]

The price was $300 for 50 sheets did not sound like a value deal at all. I'll have to stay with the XX in 35mm.

XX is not Eastman Double-X just FYI that's a different film.

 

[Xmas]

search will get you the history...

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

 

[Axle]

I don't think 5222 is going away anytime soon.

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't think 5222 is going away anytime soon.

It is, they've already cut out every version except 400ft spools, that a bad sign...

 

[Dennis S]

XX is not Eastman Double-X just FYI that's a different film.

I just go from what I see
View attachment 94567

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

Ok so since I'm the one who started the 4x5 Eastman Double-X thing (5222 is specifically the 35mm version), here's the scoop.

We asked kodak, they said Maybe but you need x boxes at $300.

So we were able to get X boxes ordered, it was amazing.

And kodak said "oh whoops, we need 3 times that many boxes "because of waste".

So after that we gave up, we couldn't get that many more orders, it's sad. And now there's information that 5222 might not be around much longer, I know they cancelled at least one of the 35mm can sizes and 16mm entirely I THINK I read that, I can't find it now... Anyone have the link?

So that's the info about the 4x5 stuff...

So, I think Stone and I are actually saying the same thing. Kodak said, I think, that there were production issues with cutting 4x5 and they were going to incur wastage that they wanted us to cover. That made the whole thing untenable. It wasn't the price, per se, but it was price in the end...

 

[StoneNYC]

I just go from what I see
View attachment 94567

Yes but "Eastman Double-X" is different than XX which I believe refers to "Kodak Super-XX" a film long gone, by kodak, not by Eastman, which again are separate divisions (possibly even companies), even if they are the same yellow box.

That's what I meant.

And 5222 refers to the 35mm version, the 16mm version is 7222, and the 4x5 would have been another number altogether.

I got schooled on this when I starred trying to organize the 4x5 buy.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Usually when companies quote a crazy price they are saying they don't want to go through with it or he bothered by it. Could this have been the reason? I mean you got enough people to pony up $300 or whatever a box and maybe they didn't expect that would happen so they went ahead gave you an even bigger number.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

All Kodak cine films are designated Eastman rather than Kodak. Thus when they were manufactured Kodak Plus-X was a different emulsion from Eastman Plus-X (5231). When people don't also follow this distinction misunderstandings occur.

 

[StoneNYC]

All Kodak cine films are designated Eastman rather than Kodak. Thus when they were manufactured Kodak Plus-X was a different emulsion from Eastman Plus-X (5231). When people don't also follow this distinction misunderstandings occur.

Thank you Gerald, I was feeling like I was beginning to sound like a stickler but I knew that it meant something to be accurate. Appreciate the much better worded reply

 

[cmacd123]

All Kodak cine films are designated Eastman rather than Kodak. Thus when they were manufactured Kodak Plus-X was a different emulsion from Eastman Plus-X (5231).

The distinction USED to be true, but for some reason EK started to name some of the later Movie films as "Kodak Vision". They still are "Movie" films (ECN-2 Process) and come in the familiar Gold Can. The more things change the more confusing the world gets. Most of the lists Do refer to 5222/7222 as Eastman Double-X Negative. At one time there were 4 Movie Negatives, Eastman XT Background, Eastman Plus-x, Eastman Double-x and Eastman 4X pan.. I had a roll of XT one time 30 years ago, and if was very nice but slow. I suppose it was somewhat related to Panatomic-X on the still side.

Last time I looked at the price list from the Motion Picture group, I did notice that as "Kodak Professional" now refers to products sold by Kodak Alaris, They have changed the name of Kodak Professional Film Cement to now be Kodak Film Cement Professional grade. The Actuall Product and the Catalogue number remain the same.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I'm a cinematographer as my "day job" so can perhaps comment here. Vision films are a line of color motion picture negative films introduced in the late 90s. The term "Vision" never applies to Black and White films. Only "Vision" films come in gold cans, so Double-X '22, discontinued Plus-X '31 as well as all previous generations of color negative and reversal films came in silver cans. Even the "Vision" line has distinctions between each generation - we are currently at Vision3, the generation with the best skin tones and saturation and contrast in my opinion. Motion picture film has never looked better and yet it's threatened with extinction. Before "Vision" was the "EXR" line of color films that had a much contrasty, saturated look, but prone to more color crossover. This meaty look became part of the 90s aesthetic (as well as trendy cross processing and silver retention techniques). EXR was introduced in the late 80s, died in the 21st century and before that was simply "Eastman" film.

I worked extensively with Double-X and Plus-X and was extremely disappointed when I learned that Plus X was the film to be discontinued. By the fairest comparison, i.e.: watching projected contact prints, Double X was much muddier with empty shadows and poor mid tone separation. Developing to a higher gamma did not improve it's dead look. The grain was mucky and not sharp, although I'm sure the standard MP developer, D-96 had something to do with this. However, in the same standardized soup, Plus-X was shockingly more sharp carried a much more dynamic tonality.

Jarin

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm a cinematographer as my "day job" so can perhaps comment here. Vision films are a line of color motion picture negative films introduced in the late 90s. The term "Vision" never applies to Black and White films. Only "Vision" films come in gold cans, so Double-X '22, discontinued Plus-X '31 as well as all previous generations of color negative and reversal films came in silver cans. Even the "Vision" line has distinctions between each generation - we are currently at Vision3, the generation with the best skin tones and saturation and contrast in my opinion. Motion picture film has never looked better and yet it's threatened with extinction. Before "Vision" was the "EXR" line of color films that had a much contrasty, saturated look, but prone to more color crossover. This meaty look became part of the 90s aesthetic (as well as trendy cross processing and silver retention techniques). EXR was introduced in the late 80s, died in the 21st century and before that was simply "Eastman" film.

I worked extensively with Double-X and Plus-X and was extremely disappointed when I learned that Plus X was the film to be discontinued. By the fairest comparison, i.e.: watching projected contact prints, Double X was much muddier with empty shadows and poor mid tone separation. Developing to a higher gamma did not improve it's dead look. The grain was mucky and not sharp, although I'm sure the standard MP developer, D-96 had something to do with this. However, in the same standardized soup, Plus-X was shockingly more sharp carried a much more dynamic tonality.

Jarin

Thanks Jarin, do you think the speed increase had something to do with the decision to keep Double-X?

I never shot Eastman Plus-X motion film only the kodak still stuff but I didn't like it at all. But again you're talking shadow separation, one of the things I love about Double-X is how high the mid tones go, that "poor" separation is what I love about it's "look" it has a more classic look (to me) but it is grainy looking despite the kodak stats that indicate otherwise.

I thought maybe scanning was my issue and now printed some and it's still grainy, but still pleasant

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Plus X was a beautiful film, luckily FP4+ is very close to it.

 

[adelorenzo]

I know the original thread was about 4x5 sheets but for those who don't know Cinesetill is now selling 5222 in 35mm rolls.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I'm sure the working speed had to do with it. In films, cinematographers are accustomed to usually working at ei 500, and now, as most shoot digitally, ei 800. Most younger DPs now would likely even struggle to light at Double-X's 160 asa in Tungsten light.

I'm not sure if it looks "classic" to my eye, at least projected, it had a watered down, brothy look like a low-con filter, virtually no mid tone separation or local contrast. The grain was large but soft and ill defined, like a high solvent developer look. Yech.

However, it might be very good or even beautiful for certain films, like a soft, foggy, quiet lighthouse film, or depicting great mystery and "the other" where things need toy feel distant. Bergman and Nykvist, and many others, used the stock to great effect. It just wouldn't be my first choice (if any still existed) for most subject matter. But that's just my taste.


J

 

[Gerald C Koch]

At one time Eastman also made Plus-X 5231 and XT Pan 5220 cine films. Both were very nice and I miss them for still camera use. I still have several hundred feet of 5231 in my freezer.

Have faith fellow luddites. Vinyl records are making a comeback with a major manufacturer offering a new turntable. Perhaps there is hope for film.