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

[haliderollei]

Yes, it is, definitely.
Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei Retro 400s, Rollei Infrared 400 (as well as meanwhile JCH Street Pan and two of the Silberra films) are all Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 film.
You see that immediately if you test them: Evaluating the characteristic curve; evaluating the spectral sensitivity; and doing resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain tests. I've done all that numerous times in my photo test lab.
Photo chemistry manufacturer SPUR has done the same, and has also confirmed it.
Many other very experienced photographers have done that, too, and have come to the same result.
And: Many years ago that was also been confirmed by the Maco CEO of that time.
And: Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is the only possible film in production at Agfa in Belgium for these films, as the former Aviphot Pan 400 was discontinued long ago (last coating run of that film was in 2008).

Best regards,
Henning

Are they not making The films that are Rollei retro 80s? Or Copex films anymore?

 

[Agulliver]

Well if you are a U.S user of course then there is little or no premium to be paid That only becomes the case when the only U.K. stockist I can find that sells it is Analogue Wonderland at £10

If Harman had a hand in its production or has been responsible for it almost completely then it raises the question that has been mentioned by others, namely: If this film has had a U.K. film maker's hand in its production what explains the massive difference in the 2 prices - the U.S, being $6.99 and in the U.K. the equivalent of almost $12

If on the other hand Harman had no hand in it then what costs, in sending it to the U.K., account for nearly $5?

pentaxuser

the backing paper and packaging of the 120 CatLabs film just screams "Harman". The backing paper is *identical* to that used on current Ilford 120 films, and quite different to that used by Foma, Kodak and Fuji of which I have recent/current experience. The silver foil packet that the film came in is also *identical* to that used by Harman to package Ilford 120 films. Right down to the style of printing, though it is printed with CatLabs and not Ilford.

My best deduction is that "Made in EU" refers to a continental European film factory, which likely points to Agfa as this is like nothing anyone has encountered from Foma (for example). The film could then be finished/confectioned/converted (choose your terminology) by Harman who will do a top class job but at a price. It's then flown/shipped to the USA for CatLabs to distribute. Maybe in the USA it works out the same price as the Rollei branded films? Not elsewhere. And again, if buyers are aware of what it is they can choose. If you really like CatLabs or think that shooting film with a drawing of a cat on the box is fun, go ahead. Actually I do think that's fun but it's not worth the extra cost to me. I just happened to be in the states last month and able to have some delivered.

I've no issues with repurposing/repackaging per se except that CatLabs have made a big thing about this film being unique to them, four years in the making, "engineered" by them. It doesn't even suggest, it states that this is a film that hasn't been available in other forms and that buying CatLabs X 320 pro is the only way to get this particular film. If it's merely another repackage of Agfa Aviphot 200, I know I can get that cheaper elsewhere. And it's good stuff, very high quality with a certain "look" and of course that IR sensitivity. Having used the CatLabs and Rollei Retro 400S, I can say they're similar but I haven't done any true comparative tests. I am hoping Henning can help us out there

The thing about the Rollei branded films is that they are all cheaper than CatLabs and the brand owner has never made a fanfare about the various different named films being unique, or about it being specially engineered and unavailable in any other form. Fuji never tried to tell us that the Kodak-made colour film was actually Fuji Superia Xtra or anything "new". They merely used it as a stopgap to keep their name alive and perhaps even to comply with supply contracts to the likes of Wal-Mart during a time when they couldn't manufacture new colour film. They never actually advertised it or made any comments on it's origin.

It was engineers at Sony who came up with the red book standard, and since Sony was bankrolling the whole thing, we were stuck with it.

Lifeless midfi sound that distorted high frequencies and lacked inner detail, you bet.

Yup, Sony basically insisted on the red book spec and it was their people who said it was "mid-fi, at best". They were aghast when the US arm of Phillips started an ad campaign saying that CDs delivered "perfect sound" and actually wanted that campaign stopped. But the myth persists. Any half competent ape with an oscilloscope or spectrum analyser can see there is a ton of musical information missing from a CD when compared with a vinyl record, reel to reel tape or 24/96 (or higher) resolution digital recording. Perhaps some don't notice it. But I do. Trained musician and all that. Most of my musician friends notice it too.

 

[BrianShaw]

And Fuji didn't say it took 4 years to design it either.

Actually, technically, neither did CatLabs. CatLabs stated “Four years in the making…”, Whatever that means. It wouldn’t shock me that the time from product inception to realization is 4 years even if it is a repackaging effort. And some of that time could have been idle, too. It’s a claim other that shows sustained perseverance to the project more than anything else. I wouldn’t dwell on that too much.

 

[faberryman]

Was Rollei honest? Serious question… I really don’t know if they divulged their source and data sheets. After experience with Bergger I just don’t ask questions or complain if it work’s acceptable for me.

I don't recall Rollei issuing a press release saying that their film was a new film four years in the making, totally unique and unavailable from any source in any other packaging, and then coming on Photrio and repeating the same claims. If Rollei did, then I would hold it in the same low esteem I hold the CatLABS guy.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't recall Rollei issuing a press release saying that their film was a new film four years in the making, totally unique and unavailable from any source in any other packaging, and then coming on Photrio and repeating the same claims. If Rollei did, then I would hold it in the same low esteem I hold the CatLABS guy.

I understand you! I don't recall how Rollei initially marketed because I didn't pay attention from the beginning... "Rollei" in the current incarnation is no more Rollei than is Polaroid. It's all marketing, which is by definition sometimes (often?) fraudulent in one way or another.

In both cases, CatLAB and Rollei, we may be experiencing slightly different versions of typical marketing techniques: sins of commission and sins of omission. Curious about the Rollei context I briefly interrogated their website. They state a collaboration with MACO in their marketing blurb but not much more. Their catalogue doesn't say much more about the product either, but the product links they provide go to a retailer who has a link to spec sheets - Aviophot in the couple of examples that I viewed.

Remember when Rolls Royce came out with the new Ghost/Phantom, which is really a BMW? Talk about disappointment!

I'm not taking any of this personally or blaming anyone personally as I gave up on honesty in marketing too long ago. I once was occasionally skeptical about marketing claims and now almost always skeptical unless proven otherwise.

 

[Huss]

And Fuji didn't say it took 4 years to design it either.

Well they didn’t say anything because most people didn't notice. They just bought what they thought was Fuji 200.
what is worse? Catlabs pretending they have an all new film? Or Fuji changing what is inside the box while acting like it is business as usual?

And does any of this matter as long as you like the final results? That’s all I care about. When I sell my pics no-one is going to look at them and say ‘ya know I was about to buy this but then you told me you used fuji 200 when actually it really is Kodak 200, so I’m out”

 

[BrianShaw]

And does any of this matter as long as you like the final results?

Yep

 

[MattKing]

And does any of this matter as long as you like the final results?

On the colour film front, I wonder if the commercial labs were alerted by Fuji with a memo: "use the Kodak Gold channel on your minilab scanner"?

 

[faberryman]

And does any of this matter as long as you like the final results? That’s all I care about. When I sell my pics no-one is going to look at them and say ‘ya know I was about to buy this but then you told me you used fuji 200 when actually it really is Kodak 200, so I’m out”And does any of this matter as long as you like the final results?

If it doesn't matter to you, then I am pretty sure it won't matter to anyone.

 

[faberryman]

Well they didn’t say anything because most people didn't notice. They just bought what they thought was Fuji 200.
what is worse? Catlabs pretending they have an all new film? Or Fuji changing what is inside the box while acting like it is business as usual?

Pretending? What an interesting choice of words. It sounds so child-like and innocent. One can envision a young boy wearing short pants running through a field of wildflowers holding a toy airplane above his head pretending he is flying. Soft focus. Slow motion. Sentimental music.

I envision something quite different when I read the CatLABS guy's posts here on Photrio.

 

[cmacd123]

On the colour film front, I wonder if the commercial labs were alerted by Fuji with a memo: "use the Kodak Gold channel on your minilab scanner"?

I wonder if the film came with the DX code for Kodak or Fuji, on the edge printing beisde the frame numbers. that is what selects the printer channel in the bar code era.

The bar code on the cassette also allows for sorting for big labs who want to batch all the same type film.

 

[BrianShaw]

The change in title is a new low for Photrio. Despicable.

 

[faberryman]

Who changed the title of the thread? Is the OP (CatLABS) entitled to change the title of the thread or only the moderators? The thread no longer shows up in a Google search of the film’s name.

Query: aren't all Photrio threads members talking to themselves?

 

[gone]

4 years in the making sounds about right, considering that COVID shut almost everything down for around half of that time. It definitely interrupted my life, basically all the plans I had for those years went up like smoke, but that's OK. I'm still here. There was a time when any of us or all of us could have been easily taken out by that bug.

 

[faberryman]

4 years in the making sounds about right, considering that COVID shut almost everything down for around half of that time. It definitely interrupted my life, basically all the plans I had for those years went up like smoke, but that's OK. I'm still here. There was a time when any of us or all of us could have been easily taken out by that bug.

Four years ago CatLABS was rebranding Kodak 5222 in 35mm and Shanghai GP3 in 120.

 

[faberryman]

The title of the thread has now been changed back and appears in a Google search of the film's name. Surely some explanation is in order to all members participating in the thread.

 

[koraks]

Surely some explanation is in order to all members participating in the thread.

I'll report this thread and ask Sean to look into it.
I'm not aware of any of us moderators having changed the thread title or having any reason to do so.

 

[pentaxuser]

The title of the thread has now been changed back and appears in a Google search of the film's name. Surely some explanation is in order to all members participating in the thread.

How long did the change last? I never noticed any change. Was it during Europe's bedtime?

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I noticed the thread title change for approximately one hour before it was changed back. BradShaw noticed it about fifteen minutes before I did. It could have been changed for some period of time before Brad and I noticed it. It appears the title was changed by the CatLABS guy. Brad pointed out to me that the CatLABS account is now restricted.

 

[MattKing]

The CatLABS account has been "restricted access" for a few weeks. And pending further investigation, the title change is a mystery.

 

[Sean]

There was an incorrect permission setting for one of the groups that gave extended time for thread edits by owner. It's been corrected now. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[MattKing]

There was an incorrect permission setting for one of the groups that gave extended time for thread edits by owner. It's been corrected now. Thanks for the heads up!

For those who may need it:
Translation: CatLABS (the "owner" in site software parlance) made the change, and they shouldn't have been able to. And in the future, they and others posting in this sub-forum won't be able to either.
The site software uses "owner" to refer to the member who starts a thread.
Thanks Sean!

 

[Oldwino]

Curiosity has gotten me...what was the titled changed to, before it was changed back? May we know?

 

[faberryman]

Curiosity has gotten me...what was the titled changed to, before it was changed back? May we know?

As best as I can remember "Photrio talking to themselves" or “Photrio talking to itself.”

 

[pentaxuser]

For those who may need it:
Translation: CatLABS (the "owner" in site software parlance) made the change, and they shouldn't have been able to. And in the future, they and others posting in this sub-forum won't be able to either.
The site software uses "owner" to refer to the member who starts a thread.
Thanks Sean!

As best as I can remember "Photrio talking to themselves".

The whole matter of CatLABS and this film seems to be going from bad to worse I always thought that if "you are in a hole stop digging" was the sensible course of action but seemingly not in this case

pentaxuser