I've never used DX coding - got my trusty Pentax spot for that. If I still generally shot 35mm, I might consider buying a bulk loader, but these days I'm between the V8 Deardorff and then the RZ67 for "family snaps." And this first test needs 5 rolls, tops. Each roll will contain the same subject, with 36 identical frames. I'll then cut each strip in 3-4 pieces for different developers and perhaps developing times.
I'm shooting a basic preliminary test to show a director and the producers the difference between standard D-96 results and pyro results. I want to see if the differences are strong enough to be crazy enough to pursue a pyro-metol developing system for a black and white motion picture. I'm also testing FP4 as a reference, as I always hated Double-X when I shot films (as in movies) with it, but i don't know how much of that was a function of a mediocre, highly solvent developer like D-96. Plus-X always looked much better in the same soup, however. Unfortunately, PX is no more, but perhaps Ilford would be willing to put motion picture perforations on 300-500,000 feet of film.
Yes, this first test will be still image, and not a moving one, and 8-perf instead of 4-perf, but it will at least give folks an overall idea of what could, in theory, be possible. Further tests would probably be with a movie camera. This is for a very unusual movie by a special director. It is rare enough when cinematographers get to shoot film these days; it is much rarer still when we get to shoot black and white film - if we get to do this, I want to try and go all out. I will probably not get another chance in my lifetime.
At this stage it's all fantasy and wondering, and seeing if preliminary results from simple tests warrant crazy endeavors.
Jarin