B&W iso 400 film with 72 exp.

A 60 micron PET base double perforated panchromatic iso 400 35mm film could be made (again) by one of our main European manufactureres.

In a 35mm cardtridge there is place for 72 exposures but the film is twice as long, half thick (but very strong due to the polyester base) but has limited possibilities, depending on the camera which is used.

The main question is: Would you be interested in such a film or not?
What do you see as a main advantage and some disadvantages of using such a film?


Best regards,

Robert

How would you process it? I don't think any of my reels can handle quite that much. Which means cutting the film in half.

No real interest from me. Between the issues of processing,cameras and the lack of need.

OTOH 220 would be interesting -)

Dear Robert,

As you know, Ilford never did well with this, even in the days when the film market was much bigger than today. While there are times I might be interested, as a rule the drawbacks would deter me:

Difficulty of processing: yes, you can still buy the reels and Hewes could re-make them, but it's still easier for me to stack 2x36exp on top of one another.

Light piping, meaning that you have to load under VERY subdued light. I'm told this can be overcome but I've never seen evidence of this.

Frame counter runs out (So buy a Leica M2)

Neg storage (2 sheets needed)

Put it this way: I wouldn't put my own money into such a venture.

Cheers,

Roger

I don't see the purpose.

2 neg sleeves. Most likely my camera won't like it as the frame counter stops at 72 frames. Processing - even if you could get the reels, what's the point?
To me 36 frames is a lot. I like to organize my negs by date and venue, so I often have to stop mid roll anyway...

Nah, save your investment money for better adventures.

- Thomas

For B&W, no. Aside from the processing issues, what would be the application? Maybe some street photographers could benefit from longer rolls of 400 speed B&W, or perhaps PJ-style wedding shooters who use film. When Ilford tried this at least there were photojournalists who would be shooting B&W 35mm.

Color slide in longer rolls would be interesting to me for bird photography (one of these days, I'll just get the 100 exp. back for my F-1N), since that can be processed by a lab with a continuous roller processor, but there aren't too many other film holdouts among wildlife shooters these days.

One processing option, by the way, would be the Lomo tank for movie film. It can handle 50 feet of 35mm, 16mm, or 2x 8mm.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

To me 36 frames is a lot.

Click to expand...

Lots of good reasons have been mentioned already, but this one is the most true for me (too). I already think 36 frames is a lot. A lot more than 3 x 12 frames.

Besides that, one of my 35 mm cameras might be able to cope with it; the EOS, I'm sure, will not. It always rewinds after 36 frames, no matter what.

(If I wanted to shoot 72 frames, I'd buy a half-frame camera.)

Only need I can think about.

A while back some body was asking for a WIDE 35mm back for use on an 8x10 camera. But some how I think the market for both the back and the film would be pretty small.

Can an Xpan count that high?

I would love to put a roll in my PEN and get 144 exposures on a roll - just to say that I had done it.

Robert - I would love it. When I am doing portrait I often shoot about 100 shots, often when I am shooting at an event I would like it.
When I do not a lot of shots I use medium format anyway.
Of course, equipment is necessary to support it. But I do see market for this.
Regards, Jan-Meinhart

"Soft" 400 or something decently pushable a stop or 2? The issue I see with 400 is that in natural light shooting 72 frames in acceptable light will be challenging for a lot of people all at once, unless it's spaced out over a few days and/or you're not using natural light.

That said, currently I think only my FED-2 will even let me do that - the other counters top out at 36. And, as mentioned, reel capacity to process.

My Nikon camera will only set to 36 frames when the film is loaded. It winds to film to then end when the film is loaded and moves film back to the cassette as it is exposed.

Steve

I have no need for this type of film. I have a Contax RTS-II with the long roll, motor drive back and intervalometer.

I don't have a reel for it, so it would have to be C-41 or E-6. Maybe I would want to use it if I were shooting a lot with the Horizon, but I don't see that happening.

On the other hand, I would love to be able to shoot some of the 35mm Polaroid films again (e.g. Polablue, Polachrome).

I could just imagine the problem I'd have with my Finetta 88 ... it's not a very technologically advanced camera, it winds on new film by turning the takeup spool 180degrees every time. By the time I get to the end of a 36exposure roll, the film spacing has tripled...possibly quadrupled... I'd probably be losing whole frames towards the end of a 72exposure film.

As Roger Hicks says, Ilford had a stab at this, I think it was called Ilford HP4 Autowinder. I still have the special reel that came in a pack with the film but I can't see there would be any more of a market for it now than there was in the 1980's. It's nice that we've been asked but the Poll gives the answer!

no problem for us. would have to be loaded on a bulk rack.

dw
www.dr5.com

Brac said:

As Roger Hicks says, Ilford had a stab at this, I think it was called Ilford HP4 Autowinder. I still have the special reel that came in a pack with the film but I can't see there would be any more of a market for it now than there was in the 1980's. It's nice that we've been asked but the Poll gives the answer!

Click to expand...

Brac said:

As Roger Hicks says, Ilford had a stab at this, I think it was called Ilford HP4 Autowinder. I still have the special reel that came in a pack with the film but I can't see there would be any more of a market for it now than there was in the 1980's. It's nice that we've been asked but the Poll gives the answer!

Click to expand...

I hadn't voted before because the question struck me as poorly phrased. Yes, I do see some advantages (so I just voted yes, in order to be able to see the poll results), but they are greatly outweighed by the drawbacks, in my view. Most seem to agree, and by the time you've taken out those who answered the same may I did, for the same reasons, the balance is still more negative.

I would much rather see the availability of shorter rolls than longer rolls, IMO.
The pros and cons have been covered pretty well.

However, here's an interesting side note, if anyone needs a 72 frame Ilford reel and tank, there's one on ebay;
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Ilford-S-S...4QQihZ005QQcategoryZ29993QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

when ilford release their 72 exposure rolls of HP5 i used it a lot as i was doing lots of sport stuff at the time. I loved it, but it was tricky at first to load.

Until recently i still had a couple of reels hanging around. I found it easier to load the film by hand than with the "fancy tool" one could use.

I understand that it really messed up the commerical labs equipment due to the thin base.

I don't think i would go back to using that length of film.

When using a 35mm camera I find the 39 frames that I get with a Leica M
are sometimes to-many for me.

JON.

JON@jb-ci said:

When using a 35mm camera I find the 39 frames that I get with a Leica M
are sometimes to-many for me.

JON.

Click to expand...

Same here. I'm pretty careful about making exposures and don't fire away like mad when the opportunity arises. Usally, I'll watch the subject for a while and decide how best to approach it. Then it's two or three frames and done. The one thing I hate is having film left in the camera at the end of the day. Oh yeah, how do you fit all that film on one developing reel? Maybe one could find an appropriate reel, but I've never seen one, even on Ebay. I doubt that any are being made new.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Ilford-S-S...4QQihZ005QQcategoryZ29993QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Maybe one could find an appropriate reel, but I've never seen one, even on Ebay.

Click to expand...

But the fact 36-39 exposures is for some users too much the question is if it would be better to make a new confectioning standard (again!) for 20 exposures as well

From the 3rd or 4th film on I was processing I resorted to bulkloading; just by hand, no loader, just feeling for the film to reach the flanges of the film. Thus I got 42 images, something I could still process in a Jobo tank and store in a sheet with sleeves (with images partially protruding out of the sleeves at the left hand side. I could cope with those few images off the frame counter of my AE-1.

At the moment I’m constantly changing between half-exposed films, in order to use different film types whenever necessary. Thus the changing procedure itself is not a problem to me.

However the chance in certain cases to use twice as long films could be nice.
Though, the need to insert `neutral´ exposures inbetween or alternatively allow for the spoiling of one image just for cutting the film for processing would spoil the advantage of such a film in most cases. But I learned just from this thread that a special tank would most probably offered in that case, so this would not be a problem.

But still there is a problem, the counter. Just 6 images off the counter limit is something different than 36 images off. Not knowing how many exposures are being left would also reduces the advantage of such a film in many cases.

The final, but crucial issue, in my case, is that my somewhat more modern Canon will automatically respool after 36 exposures. Perhaps, this could be overcome by a modification. In this case I would be interested `somewhat´. As there still would be the counter issue. Furthermore I am trying to keep the number of film types as small as possible for logistics reasons. If that film would be offered bulk one could decide how much standard and how much long spools one would make would .

Interested, but very limited…