Cinestill launches Kodak Double-X in 120

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,122
Messages
2,786,472
Members
99,818
Latest member
Haskil
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
....We don't know whether this CineStill "Double XX" is created by Eastman Kodak selling master rolls for 16mm/35mm product to Cinestill, which the latter then has cut and finished as 120 rolls. If so, the resulting product might share physical traits with 120 Ilford Delta 3200, which is cut from 35mm master rolls with thick-for-120 gray-tinted base...
...Cinestill did tell me directly that this is cut from a master roll of 5222 that they buy directly from Kodak.
In that case, it'll be interesting to hear how well it feeds in various cameras/backs, considering its much-higher-than-typical base thickness for 120. I suppose those that do well with Delta 3200 will have no problems.

On a related note, 120 backs with reverse-curl film paths typically cause a bulge (toward the lens) when acetate base sits on the feed roller for surprisingly little time. My measurements have shown that thickness of the film affects how steeply it ramps up and down to/from maximum bulge, magnitude of which is established by back geometry alone. Thinner bases taper up/down over short distances, while thicker ones do so more gradually. Thus, a greater proportion of the frame is affected by bulging with thick-based films.

Bulging is a non-issue for straight-across film path cameras (including Mamiya TLRs) as well as TLRs that don't bend the film until after exposure, e.g. Minolta Autocord. Those TLRs like the Yashica Mat that bend the film only around a feed roller, rather than under a sensing roller, before exposure are less problematic. The kink they put in acetate film base is away from the lens, and significantly constrained by the pressure plate.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
If they are buying an entire master roll, they may have been able to order it on the 120 base material.

Yet we keep hearing from people inside the manufacturing industry that coating the "same" emulsion onto a different base (like, say, making a 4x5 version of XP2 Super, or coating Super X-Tra 400 on 120) requires changing the emulsion chemistry (albeit in subtle ways).

Another possibility is that they may have bought the 16mm base, which IIRC is thinner than 35mm base, but already developed and ready to sell. I don't have the specs for 7222 vs. 5222 handy -- anyone know if the 16mm stock is enough thinner this might work?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,323
Format
4x5 Format
Found a camera loaded with 35mm Double-X next to a meter set to 80. Puzzled for a bit, then remembered - yellow filter.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Found a camera loaded with 35mm Double-X next to a meter set to 80. Puzzled for a bit, then remembered - yellow filter.

That's, what, 1 2/3 stops? Seems like too much for a yellow, but I guess if you're one of those who downrates your film speeds it might be about right. The one roll of XX I've shot I rated at 400, developed accordingly, and was very, very pleased. I need to 3D print a bulk loader that can handle a 400 foot roll; I can get four hundred feet for under $300, which makes it cheaper per frame than Fomapan -- but if I get it rerolled down to 100 feet or in cassettes, it costs more than T-Max.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Is there an actual design out there for a 400ft bulk loader?

I'm pretty sure there was a Lloyd style one at some point, but I've collected a regular Lloyd style bulk loader design on Thingiverse; it shouldn't be hard to replicate with a bigger chamber for the bulk roll. Just need to have the spool dimensions to make the expanded chamber fit.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,323
Format
4x5 Format
That's, what, 1 2/3 stops? Seems like too much for a yellow, but I guess if you're one of those who downrates your film speeds it might be about right. The one roll of XX I've shot I rated at 400, developed accordingly, and was very, very pleased. I need to 3D print a bulk loader that can handle a 400 foot roll; I can get four hundred feet for under $300, which makes it cheaper per frame than Fomapan -- but if I get it rerolled down to 100 feet or in cassettes, it costs more than T-Max.

I downrate normally 2/3 stops so there is that. But I don't always declare in advance whether I am downrating due to the displacement in meter point between Zone System and ISO or whether I am doing it for the greater exposure that gives nice black and white negative shadow detail.

I forgot to mention the meter was a Weston Master II and it puts 80 = 64 -> http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/speeds.htm
So I 'should' have downrated 1/3 stop and selected 64

With the film at 250 daylight and 2 for filter factor for yellow, that would be 125 by spec. Then 80 for my 2/3 stop. Then 64 for the Weston-ASA adjustment.

I have to also consider how I plan to meter. If I practice Zone System metering and select my exposure based on shadow placed on Zone II (as opposed to what everybody else does who practices Zone System and places their shadows on Zone III), I will have moved my exposure towards the direction of decreased exposure.

So this exposure business is a mess isn't it?

If I were to get a bulk roll of Double-X in 35mm, I would handle the bulk 400' in a darkroom, occasionally spinning off a roll of 100' for the Watson.
-Note the Double-X doesn't have frame numbers, so it wouldn't mess things up.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
So this exposure business is a mess isn't it?

Nah, I just look at the light conditions and open up from Sunny 16 by the right number of stops. Works fine.

I dislike the idea of having four hundred feet of film potentially loose in the darkroom -- I'd much rather be able to just drop the camera spool into a bulk loader chamber, thread the film through, and screw down the lid, and a Lloyd style is much easier to print than a Watson. It'll be about a twenty-hour print for the loader body, I figure, but it should fit in my Ender 3 work volume (220x220x235 mm). Tight, but should fit. If not, I'll have to find a way to print in segments and not have light leaks at the glue joints...
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,323
Format
4x5 Format
Sunny 16 is as good a benchmark as any.

Are the 'inks' infrared opaque?

If you are going to make a 400 foot handler, I think the best thing to make would be a 400 to 100 rewinder.

Forget all the single cassette spooling mechanisms.

Then you can buy a 400 fool roll, spin out four 100 foot rolls and give them (sell them) to friends.

Then put one of the 100 foot rolls in your Lloyd and spool away.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Every Watson I own is already loaded with something else (Ultra 400, NB21, mystery film that came in it). I've never owned a Lloyd. I don't, however, think a 400 to 100 would print in one piece on my Ender 3.

I'd have to test for IR opacity -- I have a "Deep Black" PETG filament that's supposed to be opaque, at least in visible (from Atomic Filament). I'll print a test piece before I depend on it, of course, but I bought it mainly for printing cameras...
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,748
Format
35mm
I've broken down 400 feet a few times. In a small dark bag.

Not fun, nor simple, but it worked. I store the rolls in empty 100 foot cans.
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
I can’t really take Cinestill seriously, and don’t want to support them, ever since the guys said on the Kodakery podcast a couple of years ago that (paraphrasing) “the only reason left to shoot film, was love for the process”.
That was the last episode of the (admittedly uneven quality) podcast.

Apart from being quickly disproved and empirically obviously untrue, it’s just one of the most hackneyed platitudes there is.
 
Last edited:

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
Yet we keep hearing from people inside the manufacturing industry that coating the "same" emulsion onto a different base (like, say, making a 4x5 version of XP2 Super, or coating Super X-Tra 400 on 120) requires changing the emulsion chemistry (albeit in subtle ways)

I was about to say the same thing. Here we’ve heard colorplus 200 is now being coated on a different base. ??? I thought this was a big deal and a pain in the #@%#$$ to change the coating to a different base. At least that’s what I’ve heard more than once. What gives? Either it’s not really a big deal in reality, or it is. If it really is, then wow, bravo for the effort. If it isn’t, then stop screwing around Kodak and make all the consumer emulsions available in 120 and sheet already. You kind of already are with Lomography CN100, 400, and 800, at least for 135 and 120.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,323
Format
4x5 Format
I’ve not yet been on YouTube for three years, so I’m not the biggest channel by far, but I have caught the attention of Cinestill and Lomography. I’m not to the free film size though. Cinestill did tell me directly that this is cut from a master roll of 5222 that they buy directly from Kodak.
I’ve been enjoying your series! Good stuff and great delivery. Feels like just hanging out with a friend.

Also good to know it’s 5222! I know its characteristics
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,182
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I was about to say the same thing. Here we’ve heard colorplus 200 is now being coated on a different base. ??? I thought this was a big deal and a pain in the #@%#$$ to change the coating to a different base. At least that’s what I’ve heard more than once. What gives? Either it’s not really a big deal in reality, or it is. If it really is, then wow, bravo for the effort. If it isn’t, then stop screwing around Kodak and make all the consumer emulsions available in 120 and sheet already. You kind of already are with Lomography CN100, 400, and 800, at least for 135 and 120.
There are two issues with 135 and 120:
1) difference in the base materials, and
2) differences due to backing paper being used as part of the anti-halation.
The latter may be more complex than the former.
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
There are two issues with 135 and 120:
1) difference in the base materials, and
2) differences due to backing paper being used as part of the anti-halation.
The latter may be more complex than the former.

yes, and? Maybe I’m just being a simpleton here, but I would think with the exception of a different thickness for the base between the two, you coat it the same way with the same anti-halation. The one destined for 120 gets the benefit of a little extra anti-halation because the paper is black. What else would you have to change?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,182
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
yes, and? Maybe I’m just being a simpleton here, but I would think with the exception of a different thickness for the base between the two, you coat it the same way with the same anti-halation. The one destined for 120 gets the benefit of a little extra anti-halation because the paper is black. What else would you have to change?
First, you need to make sure that the emulsion doesn't react with the other side of the backing paper.
And there are a whole bunch of coating layer changes needed due to the need to make 120 and sheet film stay flatter in the camera.
There are also differences due to concerns with humidity. The different substrates also affect how film dries after manufacture, so that needs to be accounted for.
When they decide to expand to the other formats, they also try to re-design the 35mm slightly, to make switching back and forth easier (and more economical).
It took many months, and lots of human-power, and lots of money to convert the newly re-introduced Ektachrome 100 in 135 for 120 and sheet films.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,952
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
yes, and? Maybe I’m just being a simpleton here, but I would think with the exception of a different thickness for the base between the two, you coat it the same way with the same anti-halation. The one destined for 120 gets the benefit of a little extra anti-halation because the paper is black. What else would you have to change?

It really isn't simple - it seems that some products (like 135 consumer colour neg) have much less demanding base requirements than 120 Ektachrome triacetate base did. It's worth noting that the new Ektachrome 120 is on ESTAR. There's a long list of small changes that have to be checked for interactions (especially with the backing paper) within the packaging, and whether the base thickness of 3.9mil 120 base is going to cause issues (as it did with TMax). I think that the backing paper is a major problem in getting P3200 into 120. They also have to go through several wide coating tests (as I understand it) before being cleared for production. 3rd parties like Lomo/ Cinestill may be OK with getting 5mil 135 base into 120 packaging, but it's worth noting that Ilford only does the 135/120 shared base for a handful of products - Delta 3200, SFX and (I think) Ortho +.

I was about to say the same thing. Here we’ve heard colorplus 200 is now being coated on a different base. ??? I thought this was a big deal and a pain in the #@%#$$ to change the coating to a different base. At least that’s what I’ve heard more than once. What gives? Either it’s not really a big deal in reality, or it is. If it really is, then wow, bravo for the effort. If it isn’t, then stop screwing around Kodak and make all the consumer emulsions available in 120 and sheet already. You kind of already are with Lomography CN100, 400, and 800, at least for 135 and 120.

Or it's worth the effort, relative to the ROI. Changing the base on 135 is probably relatively easier because it doesn't have the packaging interactions that 120 can have. And if there's a big backlog on the TAC bases from IPI, and you have a PET plant that can make vast amounts of ultra high spec 35mm film base on your doorstep...
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
It really isn't simple - it seems that some products (like 135 consumer colour neg) have much less demanding base requirements than 120 Ektachrome triacetate base did. It's worth noting that the new Ektachrome 120 is on ESTAR. There's a long list of small changes that have to be checked for interactions (especially with the backing paper) within the packaging, and whether the base thickness of 3.9mil 120 base is going to cause issues (as it did with TMax). I think that the backing paper is a major problem in getting P3200 into 120. They also have to go through several wide coating tests (as I understand it) before being cleared for production. 3rd parties like Lomo/ Cinestill may be OK with getting 5mil 135 base into 120 packaging, but it's worth noting that Ilford only does the 135/120 shared base for a handful of products - Delta 3200, SFX and (I think) Ortho +.



Or it's worth the effort, relative to the ROI. Changing the base on 135 is probably relatively easier because it doesn't have the packaging interactions that 120 can have. And if there's a big backlog on the TAC bases from IPI, and you have a PET plant that can make vast amounts of ultra high spec 35mm film base on your doorstep...

I'm fully aware I'm being a total and complete grump about this, but sometimes it's frustrating to see and hear things like this, especially when kodak did in fact recently (relatively speaking) change their backing paper, so if what you're saying is true, it cost them the same amount of money for every product that uses that backing paper (basically all of their 120), as it would to change the base, so why wouldn't they just change the base for everything right then and there so it was all in house and all the same? Surely they can make the base out of the same material for both 120 and 135, except 135 is a different thickness. Surely it's less expensive to have one standard 135 base that is used for all their 135 film and one standard 120 base that is used for all their 120. The costs to work out the interactions between the base and the backing paper could then be shared among everything they make. Again, maybe I'm just being a simpleton about this.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
There are two issues with 135 and 120:
2) differences due to backing paper being used as part of the anti-halation.

Backing paper cannot be used as anti-halation means, as there is an air-gap between the base and the paper and thus already a reflection there.

I guess you mixed-up backing-paper with back-layer.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,182
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Backing paper cannot be used as anti-halation means, as there is an air-gap between the base and the paper and thus already a reflection there.

I guess you mixed-up backing-paper with back-layer.
No, because the backing paper interacts in effect with the anti-halation layers - it provides a very different backing than a pressure plate in a 135 camera. The light that reflects back into 120 film from the backing paper surface is very different than the light that reflects back from a pressure plate surface into 135 film.
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
No, because the backing paper interacts in effect with the anti-halation layers - it provides a very different backing than a pressure plate in a 135 camera. The light that reflects back into 120 film from the backing paper surface is very different than the light that reflects back from a pressure plate surface into 135 film.
I pondered that a bit at various points. Do you know anymore about this?
Exactly how is the effect different?
Is there any papers describing this?

Potentially you’d be able to control/suppress the back reflection very much more with appropriate flocking on the backing paper.
Whether it would be worth it or economical, is another question.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom