CatLABS X FILM 320 35mm has finally arrived

[John Galt]

Just some quick shots with CatLabs 80 with my Hasselblad . . . grey overcast day . . I like the look of the film. Looking forward to using it under better conditions.

And FWIW . . the 5 rolls I have processed show NO edge markings at all, not even numbers.

 

[BrianShaw]

Looks good to me!

 

[pentaxuser]

Just some quick shots with CatLabs 80 with my Hasselblad . . . grey overcast day . . I like the look of the film. Looking forward to using it under better conditions.

And FWIW . . the 5 rolls I have processed show NO edge markings at all, not even numbers.

I wonder what the extra cost is to have your emulsion or at least frame numbers put on the edges. If it was my new film I'd want to "stamp it" as such unless the extra cost was very high. Anyone know what's involved in changing edge lettering or could it be that there are small and older emulsion machines that you can buy to do your own coating that didn't have such a facility?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

There is a cost involved in both obtaining film stock without edge printing and then customizing and adding that edge printing thereafter.
It is a step that is entirely separate from coating the film or cutting it to size or adding backing paper (where required). It is entirely possible that the Catlabs film is coated by one entity, cut and perforated by another, edge printed by a third, and boxed and labelled by a fourth.
My concern with the "revelation" that some of the Catlabs X film 320 showed up with Kodak 5222 edge writing isn't that the Catlab version might be the same as the Kodak motion picture film product.
My concern is with the possibility that if you buy the Catlabs product, you might not be able to be confident that the film in the cassette is the product it is supposed to be.
The companies that do confectioning for these smaller brands are probably handling all sorts of different products at any one time. Hope they are careful about avoiding inadvertent switches.

 

[Nodda Duma]

personally, i am hoping they or someone starts making ortho film in sheets and big spools like 1900.
YYMVFTSITW

You can probably guess that is my end-goal.

 

[removed account4]

You can probably guess that is my end-goal.

had a feeling ! but i didn't wanna jump to conclusions

as jimmy D says it all :

 

[Colin Corneau]

Man, these Catlab people have really taken a grilling over this.

Yeah, I have to agree, seeing this thread well after it started...what a sad summation of what online interaction has become. I can't imagine any normal human being interacting with other people this way in real life...so what conduct oneself in that way here?

I also really feel for this company and the person/people handling their public relations and/or social media...what an awkward position to be in, having to deal with hair-trigger ranters seemingly obsessed with pointless minutae.

Crazy thought, but --- be a damn photographer, shoot the film (preferably an interesting image in its own right), CREATE something, and share the results. Discuss reasonably and inspire new creation.

Not hard. To CATLabs, my hat's off to you. I love cats, and film, and would love to try your product!

 

[Eric Rose]

Yeah, I have to agree, seeing this thread well after it started...what a sad summation of what online interaction has become. I can't imagine any normal human being interacting with other people this way in real life...so what conduct oneself in that way here?

I also really feel for this company and the person/people handling their public relations and/or social media...what an awkward position to be in, having to deal with hair-trigger ranters seemingly obsessed with pointless minutae.

Crazy thought, but --- be a damn photographer, shoot the film (preferably an interesting image in its own right), CREATE something, and share the results. Discuss reasonably and inspire new creation.

Not hard. To CATLabs, my hat's off to you. I love cats, and film, and would love to try your product!

AMEN Brother! Well said. Too bad the people who need to read it the most will just ignore your reasoned post. Or worse yet not understand it applies to them.

 

[John Galt]

^^What Eric Rose said ^^

 

[eddie]

I agree with Colin. It's just a film, whether newly formulated or rebranded. If it is something new, hats off to CATlabs for their commitment to analog (actually, hats off to them either way). If it is rebranded, pricing will be the factor which determines success or failure. Either way, it's not a life or death situation...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder what the extra cost is to have your emulsion or at least frame numbers put on the edges. If it was my new film I'd want to "stamp it" as such unless the extra cost was very high. Anyone know what's involved in changing edge lettering or could it be that there are small and older emulsion machines that you can buy to do your own coating that didn't have such a facility?

pentaxuser

Edge markings are important. How else would I figure out that my film was blank because I used hypo for developer?

 

[DWThomas]

Anyone know what's involved in changing edge lettering or could it be that there are small and older emulsion machines that you can buy to do your own coating that didn't have such a facility?

I'm pretty sure the numbers and such are contact printed during the "confectioning" and not during the emulsion coating. At least in the big maker's production, the final strips are slit from larger master rolls. I would think the numbers part could/would be fairly generic, but the film type or brand text would require some new work. I'd enjoy seeing a closeup of whatever does that sort of thing just for kicks.

In the 21st century it could even be a projection of a backlit LCD image timed and sequenced by the computerized machinery. But coming up with that from scratch for a total production of two or three machines would no doubt be a brutal cost item.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The edge marking could include the nice cat logo, such as on the box.

 

[cmacd123]

I'm pretty sure the numbers and such are contact printed during the "confectioning" and not during the emulsion coating. I would think the numbers part could/would be fairly generic, but the film type or brand text would require some new work.
In the 21st century it could even be a projection of a backlit LCD image timed and sequenced by the computerized machinery. .

1) in th 1980s several firms sold Eastman Colour film obtained from Movie short ends for still cameras. Most of them had a machine that put in edge numbers by using a pair of seven segment LED displays. the red displays (most common in the 80s) resulted in Greenish numbers. I assume that they used a lens to focus the numbers on the film and flashed the digits as the film went over some kind of sprocket. The same firms offered a service to process the film and print it on Eastman Color Print film, or one of the competing print products which were made by both Agfa and Fuji in those days. Making paper prints were possible but because of the lower contrast they lacked snap.

2) if you use a magnifier looking at the edge of most commercially available film, you would see that it is made up of a set of dots. "making Kodak Film" mentions that this is also obtained by using computer controlled arrays of LED lights.

3) EASTMAN 5222 is Kodak's only Black and white motion picture camera film. it is rated at EI250 Daylight when developed as specified in D96. The specification is intended to produce a lower contrast (Gamma) which fits the 4 generation method to produce theater release prints the 35mm version has Bell and Howell (BH) 1866 perforations and the KeyKode bar code system with a number every foot, to facilitate movie editing, and no frame numbers for still use.

the edge print has EASTMAN 5222 every 18 inches. and also the letter code for that film. (plus emuslion, master roll and other codes) current production has dropped the encoded date codes formerly used in favor of actually having the 4 digit year.

EI 320 would not be a totally unreasonable speed for still use. if developed with slightly Higher contrast to match other Still films.

 

[pentaxuser]

We'd really need Ilford to tell us what it costs to set up an edge numbering and film type printing system if it were to make an emulsion to a contracted recipe and apply it. I assume that Ilford does not have a separate dedicated numbering and film type printing system for each film it produces otherwise it means that it has to have dedicated systems for its full range of films, maybe 7 or 8 setups. So if it were to make an emulsion for someone else what additional cost is involved in edge numbering and film make marking? I used the name Ilford simply as an example of a company that could do others' emulsions. There will no doubt be other film factories who can do the same. We can presumably rule out FOMA for the 320 35mm film as CATLABS said in response to my inquiry " This film has nothing to do with Foma". It's actual quote

If on the other hand CATLABS have bought some emulsion making machinery which can do low volumes does such machinery do such machines have the ability to edge mark and if not what might the cost be to add edge marking. If it were prohibitive then if CATLABS has its own emulsion machine and the engineer(s) to operate it this might explain why it can apply an emulsion but not apply edge markings

If these questions can be answered with any accuracy then we may be a long way down the road of deciding if either CATLABs films are new films. Of course this depends on a definition of a new film

Scepticism is either on its way to being banished by such facts or given more substance, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

IF you look at almost any brand of film, and note CAREFULLY the fonts used, one can fairly easily tell what "family"the markings come from. ILFORD uses a 35mm Packing station which was originally Built by Agfa in Germany. the computer can be set to print any brand they choose. the older method used a film negative which would have been installed on the machine. Most of the foma film I have seen seems to use this method for the frame numbers. back in the days of EFKE, their machinery was so worn out that the frame numbers were in more than one font as SOME of the negatives had been remade.

ANYWAY, Ilford is not likely to tell you any details of there business. the details that have come out here are from careful observations.

now if the previous post were to be confirmed. (that Catlabs 320 is in fact 5222.) that would mean that NO EDGE printing had been done, unless they are adding frame numbers.

now if you look here -> <- Adox has been gracious enough to show one of their Small perforating units, which no doubt came from a defunct film maker, if you look carefully, their are two drums on the lower right, One to put frame numbers on 24 exposure rolls and one for 36 exposure rolls. the machine punches a hole for each length so they can cut the film on another machine which also packs the cassettes.

 

[Oren Grad]

If on the other hand CATLABS have bought some emulsion making machinery which can do low volumes does such machinery do such machines have the ability to edge mark and if not what might the cost be to add edge marking. If it were prohibitive then if CATLABS has its own emulsion machine and the engineer(s) to operate it this might explain why it can apply an emulsion but not apply edge markings

I'm afraid you're tying yourself in knots over this for no good reason. CatLABS is neither coating nor finishing film itself. Period. Full stop.

If you're uncomfortable buying any until you are certain which existing emulsion it is, then have some patience until early users have shared their findings. Soon enough its identity will be apparent.

If you are seeking a newly-formulated emulsion to buy, look elsewhere.

 

[cmacd123]

I'm afraid you're tying yourself in knots over this for no good reason. CatLABS is neither coating nor finishing film itself. Period. Full stop.
.

+1,000,000 yep

 

[mshchem]

I'm afraid you're tying yourself in knots over this for no good reason. CatLABS is neither coating nor finishing film itself. Period. Full stop.

If you're uncomfortable buying any until you are certain which existing emulsion it is, then have some patience until early users have shared their findings. Soon enough its identity will be apparent.

If you are seeking a newly-formulated emulsion to buy, look elsewhere.

This is a hoot! Who am I to judge?? I started a thread about Kodak Alaris changing catalog numbers on Dektol!
Best Regards Mike

 

[MattKing]

Some here might recall the time when Harman was having trouble with (IIRC) their 135 edge printing setup - the printing was moving around from the locations it ought to have been in, and was sometimes interfering with the imaging area.
The difference was that in those days Harman was both transparent and responsive to the problem. CatLabs would be wise to consider Harman's example - particularly if the film is not 5222.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm afraid you're tying yourself in knots over this for no good reason. CatLABS is neither coating nor finishing film itself. Period. Full stop.

If you're uncomfortable buying any until you are certain which existing emulsion it is, then have some patience until early users have shared their findings. Soon enough its identity will be apparent.

If you are seeking a newly-formulated emulsion to buy, look elsewhere.

+1,000,000 yep

+ 10.0*10(9(99))

 

[AgX]

I'm pretty sure the numbers and such are contact printed during the "confectioning" and not during the emulsion coating.

That's true. However not all edge printing devices are most flexible concerning changing of the layout, aldso resulting in trouble as Matt hinted at.

 

[foc]

Whatever your point of view of the CatLABS X FILM 320 35mm, all this debate is publicity.
Hopefully, that transfers into sales and we can then hear reports on how the film performed, what brand it looks like, who made it, how the edge markings were printed and the usual speculation and testing that ensues.

I do hope they have no quality problems as they had with the 120 film. I know it was resolved but bringing a film to market with such a problem suggests it may have been rushed or not researched enough, not a great confidence booster.

On the other hand (besides 4 fingers and a thumb) any publicity is good publicity.

 

[Agulliver]

For me, the reason it matters whether this is Kodak XX or something unique....is that Kodak XX is sometimes available from other sources and cheaper. Nothing against CatLabs relabelling XX if that's what they've done, but they make this product out to be something nobody else is selling and unique to them.

It's always good to know what's actually in the box.

 

[Michael W]

It's always good to know what's actually in the box.

Yes, well put.