....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...
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....Cinestill did tell me directly that this is cut from a master roll of 5222 that they buy directly from Kodak.
If they are buying an entire master roll, they may have been able to order it on the 120 base material.
I just ordered a roll. I’ll post my findings
Found a camera loaded with 35mm Double-X next to a meter set to 80. Puzzled for a bit, then remembered - yellow filter.
I need to 3D print a bulk loader that can handle a 400 foot roll;
Is there an actual design out there for a 400ft bulk loader?
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.
So this exposure business is a mess isn't it?
Is there an actual design out there for a 400ft bulk loader? I don't have a 3d printer but if such a design already existed, I'd probably pay someone to print it up for me.
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’ve been enjoying your series! Good stuff and great delivery. Feels like just hanging out with a friend.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.
There are two issues with 135 and 120: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 #@%#$$ to change the coating to a different base. At least that’s what I’ve heard more than once. What gives? Either it’s not really a big deal in reality, or it is. If it really is, then wow, bravo for the effort. If it isn’t, then stop screwing around Kodak and make all the consumer emulsions available in 120 and sheet already. You kind of already are with Lomography CN100, 400, and 800, at least for 135 and 120.
There are two issues with 135 and 120:
1) difference in the base materials, and
2) differences due to backing paper being used as part of the anti-halation.
The latter may be more complex than the former.
First, you need to make sure that the emulsion doesn't react with the other side of the backing paper.yes, and? Maybe I’m just being a simpleton here, but I would think with the exception of a different thickness for the base between the two, you coat it the same way with the same anti-halation. The one destined for 120 gets the benefit of a little extra anti-halation because the paper is black. What else would you have to change?
Image fidelity, and a large dataset to work with.What are the other reasons to shoot film?
yes, and? Maybe I’m just being a simpleton here, but I would think with the exception of a different thickness for the base between the two, you coat it the same way with the same anti-halation. The one destined for 120 gets the benefit of a little extra anti-halation because the paper is black. What else would you have to change?
I was about to say the same thing. Here we’ve heard colorplus 200 is now being coated on a different base. ??? I thought this was a big deal and a pain in the #@%#$$ 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.
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...
There are two issues with 135 and 120:
2) differences due to backing paper being used as part of the anti-halation.
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.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.
I pondered that a bit at various points. Do you know anymore about this?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?