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

[AgX]

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?

Well, there was a time when PET was not yet a consumable plastic as today. Due to its high price and difficulty in coating, it, it first was used at applications were dimensional stability was most important. That was not the case with the movie industry where this was no issue respectively where one could handle it.
You put up a good question though, but keep in mind that the movie industry is utmost conservative and had clinged to actually outdated materials in other aspects too, to an extend that I stopped questioning it.

 

[brbo]

You put up a good question though, but keep in mind that the movie industry is utmost conservative and had clinged to actually outdated materials in other aspects too, to an extend that I stopped questioning it.

And I was saying that one of those conservative things could be not wanting expensive cameras to break.

 

[AgX]

Here two issues may come into play, as ignorance on the issue of material characristics, but also being non-conservative, as a conservative person would not even have bothered to learn about any non-conventional material.

 

[removedacct1]

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".

However, if asked directly for information about spectral sensitivity, characteristic curves, etc. they deflect and avoid and flatly decline to provide ANY such information, I assume they're hiding something they consider to be deleterious to their sales, in which case that product goes straight onto my "Avoid" list. I'm not the only person who has requested this information and told "that info isn't available" (to customers). If I ask for information about spectral sensitivity and characteristic curves and you say "No", then when you ask me to BUY your film, I will also say "No".

I bought some of their X 80 sheet film 3 years ago and it tested to be closer to 12ASA in practice (assuming you wanted to record ANY shadow information), and the stuff went bad a year before its stale date: developed film was marred by mottling and density spots that made it unusable. I chucked the rest of it in the garbage.

 

[mshchem]

Light piping is a huge issue as well with PET. I remember loading standard 8 movie film, the only light protection was the film a the reel.

 

[AgX]

That is why other manufacturers explicetely advise at least at such type 135 films to use a stronger shading at loading than with conventianal films and to store them in the dark (black canister).

Is there such warning by Catlabs?

 

[Don_ih]

I assume they're hiding something they consider to be deleterious to their sales

Frankly, you're probably right. Now, why should they not do that? Everything is buyer-beware. If you don't have enough information to be comfortable, then ....

 

[Huss]

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.

Why a tripod? I have no issues handholding. Sunny f16 = 1/125@ 5.6 or f4 depending on Babylon or Fantome.

 

[Oldwino]

It is not Double XX. Well, it doesn't say Double-XX on the rebate.

 

[Oldwino]

That is why other manufacturers explicetely advise at least at such type 135 films to use a stronger shading at loading than with conventianal films and to store them in the dark (black canister).

Is there such warning by Catlabs?

Black canister. Some minor light piping. No warning that I can see.

 

[removedacct1]

It is not Double XX. Well, it doesn't say Double-XX on the rebate.

View attachment 318550

I see clear evidence of light piping on the sprocket holes in the top example. I've seen this often in some of those obscure European films, like Svema's MZ-3

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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.

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?...

The second sentence of my post that you quoted answers the question. The people it describes do not represent any significant percentage of today's film market.

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

Again, this niche-within-a-niche-within-a-niche (the complainers in this thread), even though feeling alienated, are an insignificant portion of today's film market and, as a result, have virtually no influence over whether a given manufacturer will thrive in it.

Because they do....

That’s enlightening.

Glad to help. It's certainly more insightful than much of the other curmudgeonly complaining in this thread.

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.

Complainers in this thread can repeat their gripes about lack of technical data another million times. It still won't make Omer sell any less X FILM 320 to the real market, which isn't here.

...Everything Kodak makes, color, is acetate...

Incorrect. The recently introduced 120 GOLD 200 is on a polyester base. Fingers crossed that Kodak transitions all its 120 film from acetate to polyester. That would prevent reverse-curl feed paths from causing film to bulge toward the lens, a real problem with many cameras.

PET is problematic for 35mm cassettes due to light piping, can fog film. Not an issue with 120.

As long as I've followed the instructions about loading, there's been no light piping problem with polyester-base 35mm ADOX CHS-100-II and SCALA 50.

 

[mshchem]

The second sentence of my post that you quoted answers the question. The people it describes do not represent any significant percentage of today's film market.



Again, this niche-within-a-niche-within-a-niche (the complainers in this thread), even though feeling alienated, are an insignificant portion of today's film market and, as a result, have virtually no influence over whether a given manufacturer will thrive in it.





Glad to help. It's certainly more insightful than much of the other curmudgeonly complaining in this thread.



Complainers in this thread can repeat their gripes about lack of technical data another million times. It still won't make Omer sell any less X FILM 320 to the real market, which isn't here.



Incorrect. The recently introduced 120 GOLD 200 is on a polyester base. Fingers crossed that Kodak transitions all its 120 film from acetate to polyester. That would prevent reverse-curl feed paths from causing film to bulge toward the lens, a real problem with many cameras.



As long as I've followed the instructions about loading, there's been no light piping problem with polyester-base 35mm ADOX CHS-100-II and SCALA 50.

I was referring to cinema camera films. I believe that Kodak Gold 200 ,35mm, is still on a acetate base. I looked couldn’t find any information on the film base on Kodak's datasheet that came up on Google or at B&H

 

[mshchem]

OMG Kodak's DATASHEET for Kodak GOLD 200, is from 2016! No mention of anything other than 135 size, No mention of 120, No mention of film base material. They do have some bitchin' spectral response data, probably cut and pasted from the 2007 version of the datasheet.

 

[BrianShaw]

Try this:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/Kodak%20Professional%20Gold%20120%20FAQs_Final.pdf

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/E7022.pdf

 

[AgX]

The second sentence of my post that you quoted answers the question. The people it describes do not represent any significant percentage of today's film market.

BUT we, this insignificant percentage, have been approached in a sale attempt by Catlabs. Thus all stated above respectively on treating a market applies here too.

The problem is that we two see the market from different perspectives.
You from looking at the greatest possible revenue. Me looking at the vendor/market relation.

 

[mshchem]

Try this:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/Kodak%20Professional%20Gold%20120%20FAQs_Final.pdf

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/E7022.pdf

Thanks. This is good. I wonder when the data other than the film base was evaluated? I'm sure it's all good data. Even when Kodak was having backprint transfer on roll films I never got burned. Good to see EK still using acetate for 35mm Gold 200.

Kodak and Ilford, that's my plan.

 

[BrianShaw]

This is good.

Hmmmmm… I expected more. The latest data sheet seems skimpy to me.

 

[cmacd123]

OK folks enough with the magic changing of film bases. the 5 in 5222 means it is on an acetate base 35mm or wider. 16mm version on acetate is 7222. if they were to make a Polyester version of that film the Number would start with a 2 or a 3 - 2222 or 3222.

Movie PRINT film is generally on Polyester base. 2383 and 3383. that is only exposed in the Lab.

35mm movie stock in the 3 to 30 ISO range are lab films. some pancro, some ortho and some Blue sensitive. Agan some are on Polyester - some on Acetate.

now what is the connection with the Catlabs product?

 

[cmacd123]

And yes, many makers now buy in their film base. I don't belive that Ilford EVER made their own base. MY understading is that many firms buy from Island Polimers, which was built as part of the VEB Orwo complex perhaps even Before the partition of Germany.

 

[Huss]

35mm movie stock in the 3 to 30 ISO range are lab films. some pancro, some ortho and some Blue sensitive. Agan some are on Polyester - some on Acetate.

now what is the connection with the Catlabs product?

Wut about ISO 1.6 film? That is wut I’m shooting right now. No tripod required if it is sunny out!

 

[mshchem]

And yes, many makers now buy in their film base. I don't belive that Ilford EVER made their own base. MY understading is that many firms buy from Island Polimers, which was built as part of the VEB Orwo complex perhaps even Before the partition of Germany.

Making plastic films is magical to watch. Huge operations. I suspect that Eastman Kodak is making all sorts of PET films and sheet for various businesses.

 

[warden]

Complainers in this thread can repeat their gripes about lack of technical data another million times. It still won't make Omer sell any less X FILM 320 to the real market, which isn't here.

Actually the lack of this technical info does hurt their ability to sell film, which is probably why Catlabs claims to be working on additional technical documentation for this film all of a sudden. Maybe they're listening to their potential customers that are asking for more information here and elsewhere, after all.

On the Catlabs IG they told a poster today that they will be providing some kind of "informative spectral testing" for this film in a few weeks time, but in the meantime suggested that the person asking for characteristic curves purchase a densitometer from Catlabs (for about $900) and do the testing for themselves. You can imagine how well that was received, or you can read it for yourself on IG.

 

[Huss]

My first roll of CatLabs 320 Pro, rated at ISO 200, DF96 Monobath

This eucalyptus was shot in direct bright sunshine, and then the next morning in strong, overcast back lit conditions

 

[Huss]

And a couple of other test shots. Same as above.