Double-X 100' rolls Special Order??

[AgX]

Those "rounded" holes nevertheless have sharp corners, in contrast to those "straight" holes.

 

[Mr Bill]

As AgX indicates, the "rounded" (B&H) holes have two flat sides which join abruptly, with no radius. The KS (Kodak Standard) has 4 radiused corners which should be better with respect to stress raisers. In practical terms, though, I think either style works pretty well.

 

[ath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have shot hundreds of feet of cine film in various cameras and never had a problem with either registration or film transport.

 

[cmacd123]

Those Orwo films at 90USD for 400ft are a great deal, just wish there was a UK distributor,

Did you check the filmotec.de web site? http://www.filmotec.de/?page_id=353&lang=en looks like their is a sales contact in the UK. They may want to direct ship from germany, but that is not as big a deal as it used to be within Europe as I understand. perhaps one of the other eurpean delers could ship to you.

 

[cmacd123]

Sharp internal corners are where stresses get focused and tears begin. Rounded sprocket holes spread the load more uniformly and reduce the probability of tearing, especially at higher frame rates.

Yes, it is a long history and as one person said a lot of standrds conferences.

Edison used round perfs, but they caused problems making prints particularly when the (Nitrate) film shurnk. Bell and Howell made a perf with rounded ends and stright sides, (now called BH perf or N (Negative) perf, but the sharp transitions would sometimes crack at high speeds. Kodak made the perfs still photographers are familar with to avoid this wih all sides stright and rounded corners. The "height" of the hole is a bit higher however. These are called KS (Kodak Standrd) or P (positive).

Just to allow for the fact that more modern films shrink less than the nitrate ones did, it was found useful to space the Negative perfs a bit (4 ten thousands) closer than the positive perfs to avoid slippage in the printer. so you generaly find Movie negative with a "BH-1866" perf while positive print film is supplied as KS-1870, as is most film inteded for still camera use. I have never heard of a still camera that is bothered by the difference, and since still cameras one use the perfs once, the risk of the BH perf causing a rip is rather remote. A movie camera would become very noisy if trying to use the wrong perf pitch.

there have been other specs, the Duvray-Howell DH (like a Kodak but with a bell and howell hight, CS (cinemascope- AKA Fox Holes) with smaller perfs to allow room for magnetic soundtracks.

As for why the 100 ft rolls are not standrd items any more, remeber that 35mm Movie film runs at 90 feet a minute, so a 100 ft load is really only useful for some special applications like a "crash Camera" that is mounted in harms way. They used to rig up eyemo cameras which take a 100 ft spool for car crashes and the like. If you order a lot of film Kodak will "finish to order" a lot of stocks but the price and Minimum order is a lot higher then for warehouse items.

If you can find some friends that want to split a roll, some of the local movie labs will re-spool film to smaller rolls for a few bucks a roll. if you can't supply empty cans they will probaly want a couple more bucks for a can/bag/core combination. They are most likly to use a 2 inch core. If you say that you are not using the editing numbers they don't have to rewind the rolls to put them "start end out" so that might save them a few minutes.

 

[cmacd123]

I should metion that if you were to want to do a lot of switching sizes on film, a set of "rewinds" and a 35mm "split reel" would be useful. The split reel as the name implies comes apart with the two flanges attched to a center which will accept a 2 or 3 inch core. You can then wind the film off in the dark onto another roll using a set of rewinds. For my puroposes I generaly just use a spool on the other side, as it is hard to justify the cost of two split reels. I saved several 35mm spools from the Legacy Pro Bulk Film. (they spools are somecalled "daylight spools" or "Eyemo" spools if you are searching online to find them. You need rewinds that have a long enough spindle to accept 35mm rolls, some only are long enough for 16mm.

 

[StoneNYC]

See all this talk and now I want to shoot on double x just to see what it's like. But I don't do bulk loading lol. And mostly shoot 120 (some 35mm though)So what's a boy to do...? Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

Just to allow for the fact that more modern films shrink less than the nitrate ones did, it was found useful to space the Negative perfs a bit (4 ten thousands) closer than the positive perfs to avoid slippage in the printer. so you generaly find Movie negative with a "BH-1866" perf while positive print film is supplied as KS-1870, as is most film inteded for still camera use.

Any change in degree of shrinkage affects both, the negative and the print film. The idea of using a larger hole distance on print film is due to films whilst copying running over a drum as sandwhich with the print film being the outer one.

 

[cmacd123]

Any change in degree of shrinkage affects both, the negative and the print film. The idea of using a larger hole distance on print film is due to films whilst copying running over a drum as sandwhich with the print film being the outer one.

exactly, in the Nitrate days the shrinkage of the negative created the difference "automagicaly" - once they switched to low shrink stocks they had to "Build it in"

 

[cmacd123]

See all this talk and now I want to shoot on double x just to see what it's like. But I don't do bulk loading lol. And mostly shoot 120 (some 35mm though)So what's a boy to do...?

Perhaps place an Ad on APUG? Asking to buy some already loaded into cassettes. Some one may be willing to do the work for you.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

See all this talk and now I want to shoot on double x just to see what it's like. But I don't do bulk loading lol. And mostly shoot 120 (some 35mm though)So what's a boy to do...? Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a guy who sells XX online in 3 roll sets that he's bulk loaded. I'll try and find it. XX is pretty nice.

s-a

 

[semi-ambivalent]

There's a guy who sells XX online in 3 roll sets that he's bulk loaded. I'll try and find it. XX is pretty nice.

s-a

lancephoto1@yahoo.com

I bought three rolls from him, liked what I saw and ordered a 400' core from Raw Stock. It can take Lance some time to ship but he got my film to me just fine. For me, payment via paypal. Give him a holler, work something out. He also handles some other rather weird emulsions. Have no idea where he gets them.

s-a

 

[Pioneer]

We have certainly come a long, long way.When the Leica I first came on the scene, rolling your own onto a Leica cassette from movie film stock was the only way to get your supply of 35mm film. Reportedly HCB did it nightly, and I suspect that many other famous photographers did as well. Now it is definitely a fringe activity.

 

[AgX]

There was a special still-photography 35mm film made for the Leica by Perutz.

 

[fotch]

There was a special still-photography 35mm film made for the Leica by Perutz.

Perutz, there is a name from the past, mid 50's?

 

[AgX]

Perutz started with photoplates (spectrally sensitized) in 1882, thus started photochemically before Agfa (who bought them in 1964).


That film for the Leica was introduced in 1925 I guess (I can't find the exact year in my archive).

 

[StoneNYC]

lancephoto1@yahoo.com

I bought three rolls from him, liked what I saw and ordered a 400' core from Raw Stock. It can take Lance some time to ship but he got my film to me just fine. For me, payment via paypal. Give him a holler, work something out. He also handles some other rather weird emulsions. Have no idea where he gets them.

s-a

Thanks


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

There's a guy who sells XX online in 3 roll sets that he's bulk loaded. I'll try and find it. XX is pretty nice.

s-a

Sixty exposures for $20? Now that's twice as much as Kodak proposed to the OP....

 

[pdeeh]

There's a Spanish supplier called Foto-R3 (www.foto-r3.com) sells XX in 36s for €3.99/~£3.50/~$5.25 ... though shipping (even to UK) makes it rather more expensive per roll unless you are buying quite a lot

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Sixty exposures for $20? Now that's twice as much as Kodak proposed to the OP....

It's three 20 exp loads, PLUS OP gets to see if he really likes the film before committing to a bigger $ layout. That's not worth something in your books?

s-a

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

It's three 20 exp loads, PLUS OP gets to see if he really likes the film before committing to a bigger $ layout. That's not worth something in your books?

s-a

Just noting how the three-pack set is double the price of a 100' roll, considering the ire projected at pricing of the 100' roll compared to the 400' roll (not just on this forum).

 

[Roger Cole]

Just noting how the three-pack set is double the price of a 100' roll, considering the ire projected at pricing of the 100' roll compared to the 400' roll (not just on this forum).

The comparison of the 100' roll price should rightly be to 100' rolls of other films. The proper comparison for 3x20 exposures should be to others of that loading but 20x loads aren't common now commercially. The closest would be 24x. Of course the per-shot price for the 100' roll will be a lot less. I'd be shocked it it were not.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Most expensive 24 exposure rolls I see are $5.49 each, so $16.50 for three. And the most expensive 100 foot rolls I find are $90. Hmm. Seems that no matter what the price is it's maybe the IDEA of allowing Kodak to charge a premium for a special order that is the problem. At these prices XX isn't much different At all than shooting factory spooled HP5 135/24 or TMAX 100 bulk rolls. But I guess nobody would ever do that...

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

"Turns out that Plus-X is gone because the one particular machine that coated it broke, and it couldn't be repaired any more, same as Efke"

I call BS on this. Kodak shifted all of its film making to one plant in 2002 that could make all of the films under one roof, just changing the emulsions for the master rolls to be cut. One Kodak machine 'wearing out' for Plus-X? Ha.
Perhaps you got the previous version mixed up, that version of Plus-X pre 2002 had the distinctive blueish film base.

I'm relaying what I was told from a reliable source who deals directly with Kodak regularly around film. I was certainly not much of a Kodak fan after seeing Plus-X go- which this source did not know, and hearing this was a surprise to me. Believe whatever you want I really could care less.

At this point I could give a sh1t about any of this. A couple of us were wondering about getting XX respooled and asked a question of Kodak. One of us thought that years ago it used to come in 100' rolls. Doesn't hurt to ask right? We were given a price and a minimum amount of film needed to make it happen. I put the info out there wondering if there would be enough interest. There isn't, instead there is just a lot of complaining about the price, even though it is only $10 more than the Freestyle price for TMAX100 in a 100' roll and 30% more than Tri-X (Kodak's cheapest B&W film) For a special order. With most things these days convenience is king- even if it comes at something of a premium- we thought this might have a chance at working for folks. To those of you who contacted me with interest- sorry it isn't going to happen. To those who felt the need to complain. Pi$$ off.