• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120

faberryman said:
...Why do kids love ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films?...
Click to expand...

Because they do. And they represent the lion's share of the film market today, as opposed to curmudgeons at PHOTRIO who'd rather complain about not being given a technical data sheet.

Manufacturers who give markets what markets want thrive. Those who cater to niche-within-a-niche-within-a-niche curmudgeons might not do as well.
 
paulbarden said:
I can't speak to the veracity of this blog post, but take a look: Is it double X? (referring to the previous version of X Film 320)
Click to expand...
You are right and Evensteve of Figital revolution even showed the Double X along the previous version's edges. However what does the new film, the Pro version, show along the edges?

Anyone here know?

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
Sal Santamaura said:
Manufacturers who give markets what markets want thrive. Those who cater to niche-within-a-niche-within-a-niche curmudgeons might not do as well.
Click to expand...

But why then entered Catlabs our, the Photrio, market by means of starting this thread and do not give this market, thus us, what we want?


And to keep further to your wording:
Manufacturers who alienate the market will not thrive.
 

You can say that another million times. It still won't make Lomo ISO 8 film sell anywhere near the worst selling film from Kodak, Fuji or Ilford.
 
Camera films (cine) are typically NOT coated on PET base. Everything Kodak makes, color, is acetate. Why Double X is on PET I suspect is for cost, I don't know. I don't fiddle with stuff like this. 99% of what I shoot is Kodak and Ilford, and a tiny bit of Foma.
 

There is a worldwide shortage of cellulose tri-acetate base. Kodak and others are having trouble sourcing it, and the available stocks have become very expensive.
On the other hand, Eastman Kodak manufactures its own Estar (PET) base for itself and others, and that business is growing for them.
Expect to see more and more films on PET rather than acetate - the new Kodak Gold 200 in 120 is on Estar base.
 
brbo said:
?! Where did you get information that 5222 is now on PET base?
Click to expand...

The datasheet for 5222 on Eastman Kodak's site still has it on acetate.
 
MattKing said:
There is a worldwide shortage of cellulose tri-acetate base. Kodak and others are having trouble sourcing it, and the available stocks have become very expensive.
Click to expand...

In the past nearly all major manufacturers, and for sure the three top ones, made TAC base themselves.
Meanwhile, with the exception of Fuji, they lost one way or the other their TAC plants...
 
PET withstands stress better, far as I know. So good for motion picture cameras.

AgX said:
But why then entered Catlabs our, the Photrio, market by means of starting this thread and do not give this market, thus us, what we want?


And to keep further to your wording:
Manufacturers who alienate the market will not thrive.
Click to expand...

Obviously, they wanted to sell film to the people here who would try it. That they're not prepared to provide information that would definitely be provided to them by the manufacturer of the film is their choice. It doesn't alienate their market, because their market don't want that information. Their market wants to get "cool photos".

Anybody who knows anything about the state of current film manufacturing knows that Catlabs and Japan Camera Hunter and Kosmo Photo don't make any film. There is absolutely zero reason to expect a spectacular new product from any of them. Why bother acting like there should be?
 
The market is the place a vendor approaches to sell his products.
 
Don Heisz said:
PET withstands stress better, far as I know. So good for motion picture cameras.
Click to expand...

That's obviously also a new information. Before, movie people would rather have cheap film torn than an expensive camera damaged.
 
Whe had many discussions here on this topic and I remember only one first hand report of something broken by PET film. And this even was no camera...
 
But there were a lot of first hand reports of using PET based film in cine cameras in those discussions?

What was the reason to move all other film used in the industry (print, duplicate...) to PET but leave all original camera negative films on triacetate base?
 
Last edited:
For many years PET based cine camera film was used in dedicated amateur film cameras.

As far as I know there never was a 35mm or 16mm cine camera film on PET base commercialized. But it was used. Also I myself was involved with such and possible camera harm was no issue for none of the potential users.

Do not overlook that PET based film is used in a great variety of photographic devices. Including the movie industry, there even in more devices than 35mm movie cameras exist.
 

Ok, let's try it again... What was the reason to move all other film used in the industry (print, duplicate...) to PET but leave all original camera negative (and positive) films that would be shot in expensive cameras on triacetate base?

You've already answered the question that users that didn't care about possible damage to their cameras used PET based films. I can see why. I shoot PET based films without thinking twice, too.
 
Yes, cameras, motion picture cameras would rather strip the acetate film rather than have PET break the camera
 
PET is used for projection prints. Rugged needs to go through the mechanism more than once.
 
PET is problematic for 35mm cassettes due to light piping, can fog film. Not an issue with 120.
 
Eastman Kodak developed Estar branded PET for sheet film. Eastman Chemical is a Global leader in polyester and acetate resins. Eastman Kodak sold off the plastics division, it was considered a commodity, couldn't generate profits that film could.
 
I have just had a look at the 2019 thread on CatLABS then 320 film which took to page 6 or so for someone to even report that its edge markings said Eastman Double X. CatLABS itself had made no mention of it having any connection to Double XX and yet the reaction by quite a few members was "So what, CatLABS has brought us a new film so congratulations to it

Others had some concern about what they perceived as a lack of transparency. Those 2 groups then have remained largely unaltered. in other words we are having a rerun of the 2019 thread and to all intents and purposes nothing has changed. The only real difference I can see was that CatLABS itself participated hardly at all in comparison with this current thread

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register