Cinestill launches Kodak Double-X in 120

[Arcadia4]

Cinestill have launched BwXX in 120 format.

Aka kodak double X 5222. Previously only in 135.

https://emulsive.org/articles/news/...ographers-for-the-first-time-in-medium-format

 

[MattKing]

Aka kodak double X 5222. Previously only in 135.

And Double X 7222 - in 16mm.
I'm not sure if it was ever made in 70mm - perhaps as an SO emulsion.
No - I see it was 2405 - Double X Aerographic.

 

[removed account4]

Cinestill have launched BwXX in 120 format.

Aka kodak double X 5222. Previously only in 135.

https://emulsive.org/articles/news/...ographers-for-the-first-time-in-medium-format

I saw that today too, what great news !

 

[Cholentpot]

I imagine that's going to look quite good. The stuff in 35 and 16 is amazing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's not as special an emulsion as everyone wants it to be (though a 250 speed BW film is handy to have), but it does suggest that Cinestill are selling enough of the stuff to be able to get it custom slit to width to package in 120 - or that someone is shooting a film in 65mm B&W.

 

[Auer]

Very cool

 

[mshchem]

I don't get the fascination with stuff like this. I shoot TMX and TMY along with quite a bit of FP4+ in roll films. Ilford and Foma in the little bit of sheet.

Who is converting this?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

BTW the movie "The Lighthouse" mentioned in the Emulsive article as well as Cinestill site was cinematographed by @Jarin Blaschke.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Is this a custom packaging by Eastman Kodak for CineStill? Made and finished in Rochester? Also, what base is it on? I find no detail about that in the links.

 

[removedacct1]

$12 a roll at Freestyle. Yikes. I don't think I'll be buying any.

 

[John Wiegerink]

$12 a roll at Freestyle. Yikes. I don't think I'll be buying any.

I totally agree. At that price it makes Ilford HP5+ look like chicken feed, cost wise. Rate HP5+ at an EI of 250 and I bet one would be just as happy. Plus, you'd still have some change left over to jiggle in your pocket. I refuse to pay inflated prices for any film just because it's a little "different". It has to do something really special for me to reach for my wallet. Something like Fuji Acros 100 for its reciprocity advantage. Now the extra cost becomes worth it. Just my Dutch opinion......................JohnW

 

[Cholentpot]

It's not as special an emulsion as everyone wants it to be (though a 250 speed BW film is handy to have), but it does suggest that Cinestill are selling enough of the stuff to be able to get it custom slit to width to package in 120 - or that someone is shooting a film in 65mm B&W.

I don't get the fascination with stuff like this. I shoot TMX and TMY along with quite a bit of FP4+ in roll films. Ilford and Foma in the little bit of sheet.

Who is converting this?

While I'm not paying $12 a roll for it I really like the emulsion. I've been using it in 35 and 16 and it's worked very well for me. I used to use Plus-X, and while this is grainier it is a good replacement. It's also very cheap in 35mm if you know where to look. I view it as a slower Tri-X.

 

[ic-racer]

I'd pay the high price to see Double-x in regular-8 again. Unlike 120 film format, regular-8 format has very few B&W reversal options.

 

[Arthurwg]

BTW the movie "The Lighthouse" mentioned in the Emulsive article as well as Cinestill site was cinematographed by @Jarin Blaschke.

Yes, that film had a spectacular look. But I believe that came from the filtration.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd love to try it. Hopefully we can get it up here.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

A new film (not another relabelling of Foma 100 or Agfa Aviphot) is good news, but I doubt I will ever buy it. Even Acros II is cheaper, which I buy sometimes because I like it the ortho-pan chromatic. Not that much that it's worth double the price of FP4+, but I use it from time to time.

What I wonder is, who is packaging this film? The spool looks different than the ones from Kodak. Does Cinestill have their own machinery for this?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm in, pretty curious to see this. Double-X is an interesting film in 35mm.

 

[Saganich]

Well, at $3.60 more per roll than TriX it may be a bit pricy but that 3rd man noir effect is nice for studio work I suppose.

 

[mshchem]

FP4+

 

[mshchem]

While I'm not paying $12 a roll for it I really like the emulsion. I've been using it in 35 and 16 and it's worked very well for me. I used to use Plus-X, and while this is grainier it is a good replacement. It's also very cheap in 35mm if you know where to look. I view it as a slower Tri-X.

Can you buy a roll of 35mm from Eastman Kodak? You would need to spool it in the dark. I can see the appeal, I'm just wary of the handling. If I knew that a professional outfit was converting it to 120, that would be nice. Backing paper???
I'm sticking to EK, Ilford and Foma. BTW, people need to revist FP4+. It's a magical film IMHO. I'm a big XTOL guy, but I develop my FP4+ in Adox Rodinal 1+25, it's about as old school as you can get. Print it on a DW FB warmtone paper, tone in very dilute selenium and or gold. Religious experience

 

[Cholentpot]

Can you buy a roll of 35mm from Eastman Kodak? You would need to spool it in the dark. I can see the appeal, I'm just wary of the handling. If I knew that a professional outfit was converting it to 120, that would be nice. Backing paper???
I'm sticking to EK, Ilford and Foma. BTW, people need to revist FP4+. It's a magical film IMHO. I'm a big XTOL guy, but I develop my FP4+ in Adox Rodinal 1+25, it's about as old school as you can get. Print it on a DW FB warmtone paper, tone in very dilute selenium and or gold. Religious experience

Short end or recans in 100 foot rolls for bulk loading. Or I get in 400 foot rolls and break down in a dark room. No big deal. As for 120, I already cut my own 70mm down to 120 and roll into backing paper. There are ways to do this whole thing in a very thrifty way.

 

[Huss]

I am SHOCKED that people on photrio are complaining.

 

[ProfessorC1983]

Is this a "classic" emulsion, i.e. without dye sensitization, like Adox CHS II?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is this a "classic" emulsion, i.e. without dye sensitization, like Adox CHS II?

It's a 3D crystal structure film as opposed to the flatter high aspect ratio crystals used in Tmax, Delta, Acros etc, if that's what you're meaning. All panchromatic and orthochromatic films need to use sensitising dyes (and most use acutance/ absorber dyes too), otherwise they'd only be blue/ UV sensitive at best.

 

[Cholentpot]

I am SHOCKED that people on photrio are complaining.

Kind of lines up with the online reviewers of Double-X. They all say 'Eh, it's ok.' I shoot the stuff and I find the film to be one of the better B&W emulsions I've shot. Tmax 100, Plus-X, and Double-X are my top three.