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

[pentaxuser]

I don't think mine was quite as dark as in the video, but maybe I used a larger volume of developer and diluted the dye more? Mine came out something like pee, straw coloured.

I've had an idea that I'll try during the week to bring the negs to work and look at them under a microscope during a lunch break.

Thanks I think pee coloured is the closest anyone who has reported their colour has come to the video and in fact once it clears after the effect of pouring it out it does meet my idea of pee almost exactly

Despite reasons put forward why each person's colour can be different it did puzzle me why there appears to be such large differences which I hadn't noticed for other films. For instance one member mentions dark grey( on another thread), another orange However thinking about it, I can see how what is orange to one is yellow to another and pee to a third which leaves only the dark grey as the real puzzle

What struck me at the end of the video was the presenter alluding to only one other film he has seen with that same colour from the dye and that was Rollei Retro 400S

Now there are several users of Rollei Retro 400S on Photrio and hopefully one of them has either noticed the colour of the dye from Rollei Retro 400S and has seen this video in question so that they can furnish us with their findings from a comparison?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

You guys seem fascinated by urine. I was more fascinated by the statement that blue eyes don't look blue.

 

[Huss]

You guys seem fascinated by urine. I was more fascinated by the statement that blue eyes don't look blue.

It's an age thing. "Margaret, come take a look at this. Should I go to the Dr?"

 

[Anon Ymous]

If anyone has some of this film and an IR filter, perhaps it would be a good idea to try a shot or two. EI 3-6 might be about right with an R72 filter. If an IR filter isn't available, then a portrait in direct sunlight of a person wearing sunglasses could reveal if it's IR sensitive or not. I've noticed that Rollei Retro 80S produces a strange effect where sunglasses are fairly transparent to IR and the eyes can be seen in the photograph.

 

[faberryman]

Actually, this is a sleight of hand on the part of CatLABS to divert your attention away from the negatives, which are undoubtedly underexposed and overdeveloped if you followed CatLABS' recommendations. To defeat this feint, pour the stuff down the drain instead of into a jar so you won't be transfixed staring at it.

Is this the part they engineered in Boston, MA USA?

If we had a datasheet we could figure out if we could substitute this for a urine sample in our next drug test. But nooooo...

 

[Dwight Anderson]

This dye color thing makes me think of my other hobby, autocross, where the tire companies come out with new race tires almost on a yearly basis. There is no hard data available from the manufacturer, (trade secrets) other than a self reported treadwear rating. So the truly serious people have to test the new tires each season, at the cost of thousands of dollars, while the rest of us wait for reports that might be relevant to our chosen cars. One funny fellow decided to report the air pressure required to mount the tire on a rim, as a performance indicator. While it has a tangential effect based on how stiff the tires sidewall is, it says nothing about the actual performance. But now every time a new tire comes out, everyone asks "what's the bead seating pressure!"

By the way, with HC110 it comes out orange, but it started out yellow before it's poured in. I would be concerned if it were pee.

 

[MattKing]

Can we please return to the film itself, and the results we are getting from it, and any interesting things we have noted about it (e.g. reel loading and monobath suitability) rather than noting similarities with to certain body functions.
We have another thread for conspiracy theories and sarcasm.

 

[Huss]

 

[cmacd123]

My understanding of the term light piping is that light is able to travel through the film lengthwise, somewhat like fiber optics, so the felt does not stop it. In my case, this occurred in a band across the first frame and along the sprocket holes for the second frame.

Yes, and it is somewhat more likely if the film uses a Polyester base. Polyester base film is quite often also thinner than acetate, for resons to do with the Modulus of electicity of polyester. in other words Polyester is "Stiffer" and so it can be made thinner to have the same degree of flexibility as thicker acetate. BUT it is the material and not the thinkness that causes the light pipe effect.

 

[Huss]

 

[Agulliver]

I've used Rollei Retro 400S but in 35mm and I do not recall getting straw/pee coloured developer....but it's been two and a half years since I shot it. I did shoot some of the older Rollei Retro 400 in 120 several years ago and again don't recall coloured developer.

I would assume the maker of the video is alluding to this possibly being manufactured by Agfa-Gevaert.

 

[brbo]

Four years in development and they come out with a film with same properties of some other film produced by some other manufacturer.

Happens all the time!

 

[BrianShaw]

So does this help anyone make a decision on buying or using the film in question? I find it odd that there has been no comment whatsoever on the available data sheet in the other thread, but perhaps that's because the other thread has a different purpose than this one?

Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)

Excellent result! Thanks. I like the tonality of this film when it hits exposure correctly. I haven't enlarged any of it, yet, though, so I'm due to get a better idea of it.

www.photrio.com

Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)

Excellent result! Thanks. I like the tonality of this film when it hits exposure correctly. I haven't enlarged any of it, yet, though, so I'm due to get a better idea of it.

www.photrio.com

EDIT (for @faberryman, unless the following post #939 was intended to be snarky, which is fine since I laughed; if so, then disregard):

https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN-200.pdf

 

[faberryman]

So does this help anyone make a decision on buying or using the film in question? I find it odd that there has been no comment whatsoever on the available data sheet in the other thread, but perhaps that's because the other thread has a different purpose than this one?

Available datasheet? Has one now been released by CatLABS?

 

[koraks]

I think he means the Aviphot datasheet since the other thread concluded the film must be rebadged Agfa Aviphot 200.

 

[faberryman]

I think he means the Aviphot datasheet since the other thread concluded the film must be rebadged Agfa Aviphot 200.

For those interested in such matters, here'a a link:

https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN-200.pdf

I noted that CatLABS guy deleted a post a few days ago, about the time that his film was being outed as Agfa Aviphot 200. It would be interesting to know its contents.

 

[koraks]

Yes, that one! Many thanks.

 

[faberryman]

EDIT (for @faberryman, unless the following post #939 was intended to be snarky, which is fine since I laughed; if so, then disregard):

https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN-200.pdf

I thought that you meant that a CatLABS datasheet was available rather than a Agfa Aviphot 200 datasheet was available. More shock (of the pick me up off the floor variety) than snark.

 

[BrianShaw]

I thought that you meant that a CatLABS datasheet was available rather than a Agfa Aviphot 200 datasheet was available. More shock (of the pick me up off the floor variety) than snark.

LOL... I didn't quite know what to read between the lines. It's all good... either way.

The way the links from the other thread got displayed really didn't indicate that if they were clicked one would see the presumed conclusion of the film identification and the associated data sheet. I tried... maybe should have annotated the links to the other thread better. After your comment I figured that you may have missed the data sheet link in the other thread.

I'm starting to think that it really doesn't matter since nobody seems interested in the data sheets, despite the repeated badgering, unless it was provided by CatLabs with their film nomenclature on it. Me... I was happy to read it once the actual film was presumably identified.

 

[Dali]

From the original post: "4 years in the making, this film is an all new BW emulsion with a unique grain and tonal range, unlike anything you have seen before.
This is a unique emulsion, not available from another maker in another packaging."

Now, I read that it is rebadged Agfa Aviphot 200.

Don't you see the contradiction?

 

[faberryman]

I'm starting to think that it really doesn't matter since nobody seems interested in the data sheets, despite the repeated badgering, unless it was provided by CatLabs with their film nomenclature on it. Me... I was happy to read it once the actual film was presumably identified.

The only reason to be interested in a CatLABS datasheet now would be to see if the information therein contained differs from the information in the Agfa Aviphot 200 datasheeet.

 

[BrianShaw]

The only reason to be interested in a CatLABS datasheet now would be to see if the information therein contained differs from the information in the Agfa Aviphot 200 datasheeet.

Yes, of course. That would be ideal. But that isn’t going to happen, it seems. So it’s all we have at this point yet even the principals in the other thread don’t seem interested in comparing those results to the Aviphot 200 data sheet. Perhaps it’s obvious to them that the results correlate highly and/or that deviations are readily explained. But, instead… crickets.

The sport in this thread seems to have been dogpiling on CatLabs/Omer. The sport in the other thread was some rather crafty and extremely impressive sleuthing and experimentation. I’m just surprised the other thread isn’t pulling what might be the final thread.

 

[brbo]

What exactly do you want people in that other thread to do? Write a data sheet for Catlabs film? That is at least up to the standard of the Agfa one, right?

 

[Agulliver]

From the original post: "4 years in the making, this film is an all new BW emulsion with a unique grain and tonal range, unlike anything you have seen before.
This is a unique emulsion, not available from another maker in another packaging."

Now, I read that it is rebadged Agfa Aviphot 200.

Don't you see the contradiction?

I really hope CatLabs are not lying. Because it really is hard to reconcile what they said with it allegedly being Agfa Aviphot 200.

I do not claim to know that it is Aviphot 200. Maybe it's related to and not identical. Honestly, I don't know. But if it is proved, then Omer will go down in my estimation.

 

[Klaus_H]

From the original post: "4 years in the making, this film is an all new BW emulsion with a unique grain and tonal range, unlike anything you have seen before.
This is a unique emulsion, not available from another maker in another packaging."

Now, I read that it is rebadged Agfa Aviphot 200.

Don't you see the contradiction?

This is a brand new film!

Aviphot 200 was never available a Catlabs packaging until now.