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

[BrianShaw]

Are you confusing Cuban with Musk?

Arrogant obnoxious billionaires… they are legion.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, I even disputed my own results after I got them back the first time. This is why, I bought more film and ran the test again. The results were nearly identical, well within the margin of error. I actually, ran the test the third time. I would gladly continue testing and sharing my results but the OP made it clear that they are not taking this thread seriously, so I will no longer post in this thread. It's a waste of time.

If I had to give you my conclusion, I would say that the Catlabs film is technically slower than the advertised ISO 320 and, not even close to being capable of reaching ISO 1600 (Catlabs recommends "pushing" the film to ISO 1600 on their website). Even if you don't put faith in the actual ISO number my analysis produced, you can see that the film is about three stops slower than 400TX under experimental conditions. In the "real-world," one should expect similar results, subject, of course, to the usual variability inherent in film (and hybrid) photography.

As to why the film turns out slower than advertised, I would hazard an (educated) guess that the film, in addition to being inherently slower than mainstream medium-speed films (e.g., 400TX, HP5+), is not quite panchromatic, and has a significant dip(s) in sensitivity along its spectral response curve. I started testing its spectral response, but I can see that it is a waste of effort so I will not conclude the test. The OP does not care, and it's absolutely their prerogative. I have no intention of telling them how to run their business. Bringing a film to market (whether new or re-badged) is a huge undertaking. Catlabs deserve sincere congratulations on succeeding. I am seriously impressed that they were able to offer this film in 135 and 120, and at competitive prices!

Nick

@aparat / Nick
If you would like, we could move your testing posts into a thread of your own, titled something like "Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)" Then people like Huss could, if they wish, upload the results they are getting.

 

[aparat]

@aparat / Nick
If you would like, we could move your testing posts into a thread of your own, titled something like "Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)" Then people like Huss could, if they wish, upload the results they are getting.

Matt,
Sure, if you think it's a good idea. Why not? Thank you.

 

[mshchem]

I thought of Ferrania a few weeks ago and was considering a little fun, speculative trolling but decided to check into it a bit first. It turns out P30 is on triacetate and this stuff is on Poly. Ruined the whole idea.

Polyester base 35mm is to rough for my delicate Leicas. Probably strip gears

 

[MattKing]

We have copied most of asparat's test related posts on this film to this new thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...g-catlabs-x-film-320-pro-2022-version.194630/
That thread is oriented toward people's results with and tests of the film, including their observations about its characteristics. We encourage people to share tests and results and observations. People can decide for themselves whether this announcement thread or that newly created thread is the best venue for that.

 

[MattKing]

Matt,
Sure, if you think it's a good idea. Why not? Thank you.

And thank you for all your efforts and your generosity in what you have shared.

 

[faberryman]

I didn’t see CatLABS’ posts disagreeing with aparat’s results and questioning his competence. Seems relevant for someone assessing aparat’s findings.

 

[mshchem]

We need a peer reviewed journal dedicated to explaining inconsistencies in film sensitivity labeling.

 

[MattKing]

We need a peer reviewed journal dedicated to explaining inconsistencies in film sensitivity labeling.

Perhaps the publisher's of this esteemed journal would be willing to take this on:

 

[mshchem]

Perhaps the publisher's of this esteemed journal would be willing to take this on:

View attachment 318482

OMG!! December 2022! I loved Spy vs. Spy

 

[brbo]

Can't find it anywhere in EU. Seems to be available in UK.

More expensive than all Ilford film, slightly less than Kodak. Twice the price of Kentmere, Rollei, Foma.

It is Pro film afterall, I guess.

 

[removedacct1]

The Kodak 400 speed BW film is nearly double the price of our film. If we charged that much for something i would certainly hope we could provide similar levels solidity to our documentation .

So, we are to believe that because this film is not $12 a roll, you cannot afford to provide things like curves or spectral sensitivity data?? Yeah, that totally makes sense…

 

[FotoD]

So, we are to believe that because this film is not $12 a roll, you cannot afford to provide things like curves or spectral sensitivity data?? Yeah, that totally makes sense…

But if the curves show it's actually an ISO 50 film, and the kids never would buy a film that slow...

I guess you could argue that they can't afford to provide the data then?

 

[Huss]

But if the curves show it's actually an ISO 50 film, and the kids never would buy a film that slow...

I guess you could argue that they can't afford to provide the data then?

Why wouldn't kids buy slow film? Kids love Lomo and Lomo sells their rebranded Babylon and Fantome films. ISO 12 and 8.
ISO 50 is super speedy compared to those.

 

[faberryman]

Why wouldn't kids buy slow film? Kids love Lomo and Lomo sells their rebranded Babylon and Fantome films. ISO 12 and 8.
ISO 50 is super speedy compared to those.

Lomo's site say Babylon and Fantome are both cine films. Who manufactures ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films? Why do kids love ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films? Seems like Lomo is missing out on an opportunity to sell a cool tripod. Turquoise perhaps. Seems like a film/tripod bundle would be in order.

 

[brbo]

Who manufactures ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films? Why do kids love ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films?

ISO 8 cine films are not used for shooting movie footage in cameras, afaik. But they are now marketed to kids to help move the stuff...

 

[AgX]

Lomo's site say Babylon and Fantome are both cine films. Who manufactures ISO 8 and 12 black and white cine films?

Cine films fall into:

-) camera films (for taking)

-) various types of intermediate films

-) print film (four projection)

Of course the change to digital movie making drastically reduced demand for all this.

 

[faberryman]

Cine films fall into:

-) camera films (for taking)

-) various types of intermediate films

-) print film (four projection)

Of course the change to digital movie making drastically reduced demand for all this.

Are any of those ISO 8 or 12 black and white negative films?

 

[removedacct1]

Ide rather be out shooting than documenting 5 pages of data to "dial in" a new film. I much prefer our motto: shoot more film

I read this as: "I'm going to ignore all requests for valid technical data about this product in order to obfuscate its true nature. If you saw what its characteristic curve actually looked like, you wouldn't touch this stuff. Just buy my film and shut up about it already!"

FYI, 3 years ago, when testing the X 80 sheet film from CL, it turned out to have a true speed of about 12ASA to give "pictorial results" (usable shadow detail).

 

[faberryman]

I read this as: "I'm going to ignore all requests for valid technical data about this product in order to obfuscate its true nature. If you saw what its characteristic curve actually looked like, you wouldn't touch this stuff. Just buy my film and shut up about it already!"

But it has a drawing of a cat on the box. Cool.

 

[removedacct1]

But it has a drawing of a cat on the box. Cool.

That's gotta be worth a dollar right there!

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)

 

[AgX]

Are any of those ISO 8 or 12 black and white negative films?

Aside of the camera films there is no need for high sensitivity, to the contrary, less sensitivity is even benefitial.
I can't tell the exact ISO of all these other films as typically it is not given.

Whether making a colour or b&w movie, all the film types I listed above were needed. Thus one set in b&w for a b&w movie and one colour set for a colour movie.
In addition, for some special effects, at colour films also b&w intermediate films were used.

None-camera b&w cine films for b&w productions do not need any spectral sensitisation, but may have.

I hope this helps.

 

[miha]

I can't speak to the veracity of this blog post, but take a look: Is it double X?

This is a different film from the one this thread is about.

 

[faberryman]

That's gotta be worth a dollar right there!

I can't speak to the veracity of this blog post, but take a look: Is it double X?

Kodak Double-X was the 35mm film CatLABS previously marketed as CatLABS X Film 320. Their new film of unknown provenance is marketed as CatLABS X Film 320 Pro.

 

[removedacct1]

This is a different film from the one this thread is about.

If the difference you're referring to is the fact that one is called X film 320 and the other is called X Film 320 "pro", then yes. But it appears there was an earlier version of this (circa 2019) and it was Eastman 5222, rebranded. That still tells us something.