Agfa-Gevaert commitment to film production

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Uncle Goose said:
I would die to see a film with a 6 ISO speed (yeah keep dreaming).
Click to expand...

I've got some Tasma MZ-3L that's rated at ISO 6 (or maybe it's 5). Unfortunately, the film I've got is about a decade past date and it produces blotchy and fogged negatives. I suspect improper storage. I don't know if the film is still being produced or not. You could keep an eye out on eBay, though.
 
OP
OP

Jacques D.

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
23
Location
Belgium
Format
35mm RF

The new Adoxplant should be able to bring some exciting new products. They have the technology and the know how to do so, while their rather small scale should allow them to service a small specialist market of dedicated professionals and serious amateurs. Efke is probably not able to do so because they make old style film with old style technology (nothing wrong with that...) Foma has some nice products on the market, but I have no clear view on their Research and Development capacities.

Jacques
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Uncle Goose said:
I only see Ilford and Fuji and Adox capable of releasing new stuff. Agfa dropped out a few years back and Kodak has to struggle to keep it's head up in the film business.

I would die to see a film with a 6 ISO speed (yeah keep dreaming).
Click to expand...

An ISO 6 film is a snap to make. Anything in the range of 3 - 12 is easily made in the home darkroom with 4 ingredients, Silver Nitrate, Sodium Bromide, Potassium Iodide, and Photo Grade Gelatin. In addition, one would need a syringe and a stirring hot plate. It would take about 3 hours of time and produce an emulsion in the range you specify. Hand coating plates is also easy.

See other posts on the exact formula and the coating methods.

PE
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
ASA 6 - have you tried B&W print?

Eastman 5302/7302 and the Polyester equivelents is about ASA 3-6, non-colour sensitised and still used a bit.

Perhaps you can find a motion picture lab that would sell you a few undreed feet from their stock? The colur stocks might also work in B&W. The current colour stock is made by the Mile and no longer has a rem-jet backing.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
AGFA Grevert Film capabilities:

The belgan plant only makes polyester base film as far as I know, the Leverkusen plant made acetate. I don't think that you can just switch the base without doing other changes to the film.
 

PHOTOTONE

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
2,412
Location
Van Buren, A
Format
Large Format
cmacd123 said:
AGFA Grevert Film capabilities:

The belgan plant only makes polyester base film as far as I know, the Leverkusen plant made acetate. I don't think that you can just switch the base without doing other changes to the film.
Click to expand...

The Gevaert plant in Belgium was making top quality film long, long before polyester was ever invented. Of course you have to make adjustments, but I have total confidence that if Gevaert saw a market, they could easily product film coated on acetate base.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Primarily this would be a matter of subbing layer, which however could induce a chain of implications.

But Agfa produced in the past Agfapan films as well on acetate as on polyester (the S-versions).

Furthermore I don't get the point (I'm slow on the intake): why should a manufacturer coating on polyester switch back to acetate?
 

PHOTOTONE

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
2,412
Location
Van Buren, A
Format
Large Format

I can think of no good reason.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
You cannot make the different supports on the same equipment as they use different making procedures. Once made, the two film supports cannot be coated with emulsion on the same equipment. You need different subbing or electrostacic processes on each machine. The electrostatic device requires a complex light trap to prevent fogging the film as it produces heavy UV and the emulsion must be capable of taking to the support which is charged.

With an electrostatic device, you also have to have a complex discharge machine to dissipate the charge so as to avoid static fog while coating at high speed.

If the plant is built for both, then there is no problem, otherwise it takes $$$.

This does not even account for the different grades of film such as 2mil, 5 mil and 7 mil. The machine must have variable tensioning for these.

This is a very very simplified picture of the various problems. If the plant is built for them all, then there is no problem.

PE
 

Simon R Galley

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Tri -Acetate base and polyester base both have advantages and disadvantages.

The biggest drawback of polyester in a camera film ( and usually one of its advantages ) is its incredible strength, especially in motor driven cameras, in our humble opinion.

Polyester builds charge quicker than tri-acetate.

Polyester is relatively cheap compared to tri-acetate film base.

As an FYI to PE

We do coat on tri-acetate and on polyester base and on the same machine ( M14 Mobberley ). With film, paper as well as inkjet emulsions.

As I am sure you are aware we have two completely different coating and preparations procedures for doing so.

Polyester especially unsubbed is a super efficient light pipe.

Polyester is superb if you need a thinner substrate ( surveillance / aeriel etc ).

Polyester is very stable.

Polyester is readily available, from a range of manufacturers.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Simon;

Kodak coats both on the same machine. Same as Ilford! What I referred to was making the supports. They are made differently, as one is made from a melt and the other is made from a solution. There is the difference.

Also, subbing methods differ substantially.

Pe
 

Simon R Galley

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
PE

Got you!......neither is a nice manufacturing process if I remember well?.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN tcehnology Limited
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Simon, my main work in this area was with RC paper and there they use a melt as well. It is hot and messy and the machine must be kept hot and running or it clogs up. Same thing for film.

And, the smell is not very nice either.

So there is this huge machine that is hot and oozing resin all of the time in a slow stream. Then it revs up and begins making RC paper as paper streams through the middle of 2 webs of polymer. What a mess. And the solid waste is remelted and run through again after "chipping" to make small pieces.

Yeah, a mess.

PE
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
.... and speaking as a hobby Moviemaker, polyester needs a tape or Ultrasonic $plicer, while acetate can be spliced with good old Film cement. The Poly movie print stock often has an almost iridescent look on the roll due to the antistatic coating on the back.

A film jam on Poly is also likly to damage the equipment as Poly will not tear easily.

I have heard that some folks find that slides on Poly stock will not work in some mounting machines as the film needs a very sharp blade to cut cleanly.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I have seen MP film on Estar destroy a camera during a run at high speed. This was 35mm in a 1000 ft roll running at such a high speed that the entire roll was used in less than 1 minute. During the jam it tore the teeth off the sprocket wheels and bent the drive shaft rather than break.

Can you imagine what a jam would do to a coating machine at 1000 ft / min? It can bend the entire machine out of alignment.

PE
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
At that speed? The test lab was filled with parts and torn film before anyone could react. During actual use, you cannot get to the main sprocket AFAIK. This may have been reported in "The Journal of High Speed Photography", but IDK the camera model at this time.

PE
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,434
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
Polyester seems to have some interesting advantages, and it's drawbacks don't seem that important on still cameras. I'm curious on how it doesn't seem to have replaced Tri-Acetate on the still film market; obviating maybe 135 with motor winder use.
What would happen if the same thickness and material between the three kinds of finish (135, 120 and sheet) were used? I guess it would be an issue for roll film cameras when it comes down to winding tolerances. But it would maybe make lower scale manufacturing easier (one master roll for everything).
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
Prest_400 said:
Polyester seems to have some interesting advantages, and it's drawbacks don't seem that important on still cameras. I'm curious on how it doesn't seem to have replaced Tri-Acetate on the still film market; obviating maybe 135 with motor winder use.
Click to expand...


The last couple of years worth of EFKE production were on Polyester, as are all the Maco films derived from industrial film made by Agfa Belgium. The main problem is light piping. Motion picture Print stock has been on Poly for years, the esta strenth is needed for the Plater drive systems where an entire feature 12,000 ft is stored on one roll


The movie print stock was made thinner than the acetate to give it about the same stiffness so that the film would run comfortably on existing projectors. in this application the thickness of the film does not matter to foucs as the emulsion is generally facing the machined fixed part of the gate on the lamp-house side. Sheetfilm is made these days in thick poly as it is stiffer than acetate and stiff is needed to hold Flat. Sheet film thickness would be too hard for roll film cameras to deal with. even film as think as the Poly Movie print might be a bit stiff.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format

If you used one support for all films, for starters, if you used thicker support for 120 and 35mm, you would get fewer exposures per roll. If you used thinner film for sheet film, it would sag and buckle.

But, there is more to this than thickness, there is also size changes (Estar has virtually none, but acetate has quite a bit). and then there is the need for a lot of antistatic materials on motion picture films to prevent marks on the film due to high speed travel through the cameras. For that you need rem-jet. The list of "crossover problems" is quite long and involved.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…