Double-X 100' rolls Special Order??

[wblynch]

If Double-X was a magic film or exceedingly superior to Tri-x, T-max or Ilford still films then maybe $1 per foot would be worth it. But everything I've read indicates that Double-X is substandard to those films.

NOW... If Kodak would make Ektachrome (any version) for $100/100ft I would be all over that deal immediately.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

If you were really dedicated to getting xx out to people you should have just bought the 1000ft reels, a set of cheap rewinds, and some black plastic bags and separate it out for your self instead. There's a thing called self reliance, and you don't need to ask a bunch of people to chip in $100 a can for cine stock and get pissy when people pointed out that the price is way high.

I remember fairly recently a member offered cine stock here respooled himself for $30-$50 a roll shipped. He had it asked if people wanted an it was at a fair price and it was snapped up. Simple.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Rich, that is a compelling photo of the Bay Bridge.

Although I haven't been up there for 30 years, I used to commute daily on that bridge for years.

Looking at your photo I feel I'm actually there. The detail and tonality is great.

-Bill

Thanks for comment Bill.

 

[Pioneer]

If Double-X was a magic film or exceedingly superior to Tri-x, T-max or Ilford still films then maybe $1 per foot would be worth it. But everything I've read indicates that Double-X is substandard to those films.

NOW... If Kodak would make Ektachrome (any version) for $100/100ft I would be all over that deal immediately.

Well, I doubt there really is a magic film, but XX is not bad at all, and having used it, Tri-X and several others it certainly doesn't act substandard to me. In fact, it is actually a very flexible emulsion.

Either way, I thought this was actually a good idea that would allow a lot more people the opportunity to try it out. Face it, picking up and using 100 foot is not so bad, but if you do not know that you will like it, 400 foot is a pretty big commitment. But it appears that everyone is still perfectly happy with what they already have and the ones who were willing to try it are already comfortable with the larger rolls. I will continue to buy the 400 footers every month or so since I already know I like it, but others may miss out on that opportunity. Takes a while to shoot 400 foot of film but I put the spare on ice until I'm ready for another roll. It is certainly a very nice film, and the 400 foot rolls stack and store nicely in my freezer.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, I doubt there really is a magic film, but XX is not bad at all, and having used it, Tri-X and several others it certainly doesn't act substandard to me. In fact, it is actually a very flexible emulsion.

Either way, I thought this was actually a good idea that would allow a lot more people the opportunity to try it out. Face it, picking up and using 100 foot is not so bad, but if you do not know that you will like it, 400 foot is a pretty big commitment. But it appears that everyone is still perfectly happy with what they already have and the ones who were willing to try it are already comfortable with the larger rolls. I will continue to buy the 400 footers every month or so since I already know I like it, but others may miss out on that opportunity. Takes a while to shoot 400 foot of film but I put the spare on ice until I'm ready for another roll. It is certainly a very nice film, and the 400 foot rolls stack and store nicely in my freezer.

I like the look of the Eastman High Contrast film that that guy mentioned earlier is offering on his site, it's nice, and double x looks nice too of course, but I would prefer some Panatomic-x or some other slow speed film, I like slow contrasty films.... I love PanF+ as it's the ONLY slow film from the major manufacturers at a decent price, I won't spend $10 per roll that's just silly when there are lots of good $5 per roll films, still, it's sad to see kodak go, but they got rid of all their good offerings in B&W, Tri-x is nice but so is the comparable HP5+ and Tri-x is more expensive than Tmax which is just silly.

Ah well... I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore... I shoot 120, show me where I can get bulk rolls of 120, I never understood why those aren't available...

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

If you were really dedicated to getting xx out to people you should have just bought the 1000ft reels, a set of cheap rewinds, and some black plastic bags and separate it out for your self instead. There's a thing called self reliance, and you don't need to ask a bunch of people to chip in $100 a can for cine stock and get pissy when people pointed out that the price is way high.

I remember fairly recently a member offered cine stock here respooled himself for $30-$50 a roll shipped. He had it asked if people wanted an it was at a fair price and it was snapped up. Simple.

I have no interest in "getting XX out to people" I was simply asking the question if there would be enough interest in getting factory re-spools of XX in 100' lengths for a tiny bit more cost than TMAX. There isn't. There are however lots of people (yourself included) who know best how I should have gone about this, and I apologize for not checking with the assemble brilliance here so I could find out how this should have been done before contacting Kodak. A few trips out to Hollywood, a few ebay purchases of equipment, and several hours hand winding 135-36 cassettes for folks sounds so much better than spending ten extra bucks for XX? A film which I foolishly believed was liked for what it looks like not because it can be got on the cheap. Moron at work here. Again- I'm not re-spooling this myself, this was coming from Kodak at their quoted price, a little bit more than the retail price for TMAX. Yep, more than Tri-X. Yep, more than TMAX, Yep, more than buying a 1000' roll and chopping it up into lengths yourself in a black bag. A SPECIAL ORDER. Did that somehow get missed?

Well, I doubt there really is a magic film, but XX is not bad at all, and having used it, Tri-X and several others it certainly doesn't act substandard to me. In fact, it is actually a very flexible emulsion.

Either way, I thought this was actually a good idea that would allow a lot more people the opportunity to try it out. Face it, picking up and using 100 foot is not so bad, but if you do not know that you will like it, 400 foot is a pretty big commitment. But it appears that everyone is still perfectly happy with what they already have and the ones who were willing to try it are already comfortable with the larger rolls. I will continue to buy the 400 footers every month or so since I already know I like it, but others may miss out on that opportunity. Takes a while to shoot 400 foot of film but I put the spare on ice until I'm ready for another roll. It is certainly a very nice film, and the 400 foot rolls stack and store nicely in my freezer.

Thanks for the calm response. There are a few here who do seem to like it,who understand that it is a very flexible film with a really pleasing grain, and there was some interest- but not enough to make this work. SO the question is politely withdrawn, I no longer want to know if anyone is interested in Factory re-spools of 5222 in 100' rolls. Nor do I want to hear yet again how terrible the price was.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

From the Nov 2012 price list: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCB_BW_VCI_Chemicals_Nov2012.pdf

Double X is $178/400ft and $444/1000ft, which is about $44.50/100ft, or $44.40/100ft respectively. Did you honestly think that people would pay more than double that for a company to put it into a smaller canister? Whats so special about it, that it comes in the same kodak can that other bulk rolls come in, in the same black plastic baggy? That there is a special label? I doubt they will make a smaller label for a smaller can on such a run.

A better approach would to just buy the rolls, and charge $10-$15 on top of that $44.50 for respooling yourself, and in the end everyone one gets a reasonably priced film, conveniently packaged in 100ft lengths, and you get a free 100ft out of it for your troubles. With a set a rewinds respooling is just a few rotations of a crank.

 

[Roger Cole]

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...

I think you still don't get it.

You're right - shooting the Double-X from bulk would cost about the same as factory spooled HP5 or TMX. But you have to bulk load it. It would cost more than bulk loading HP5 or TMX. Sure, buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded, but lets you try it without as much commitment.

My original question about the price was based on an apparent misunderstanding that people shoot this film to save money over more common films. Apparently that's not the reason. That's fine with me. But I'm happy with the commonly available black and white films for my own use.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

From the Nov 2012 price list: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCB_BW_VCI_Chemicals_Nov2012.pdf

Double X is $178/400ft and $444/1000ft, which is about $44.50/100ft, or $44.40/100ft respectively. Did you honestly think that people would pay more than double that for a company to put it into a smaller canister? Whats so special about it, that it comes in the same kodak can that other bulk rolls come in, in the same black plastic baggy? That there is a special label? I doubt they will make a smaller label for a smaller can on such a run.

A better approach would to just buy the rolls, and charge $10-$15 on top of that $44.50 for respooling yourself, and in the end everyone one gets a reasonably priced film, conveniently packaged in 100ft lengths, and you get a free 100ft out of it for your troubles. With a set a rewinds respooling is just a few rotations of a crank.

I honestly didn't know if 50 or 60 people would be willing to spend $10 more than they would for TMAX 100 to get Double-X before I asked the question. I suppose this is very hard for someone with your obviously brilliant ability to divine public opinion & desire, but then I actually wasn't thinking about asking Kodak to make special labels either...

Again, I'm not looking to make money on this, I'm not looking to have a new project re-spooling films for people I have plenty to do. I was asking a question to see if there was interest. Turns out, as you knew all along there isn't. I wish you could have divined that I was going to ask the question and gotten ahold of me before I went to the trouble. Maybe next time.

So, do let me know when you've gotten those 100' rolls spun up for us and maybe I'll get one.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

I think you still don't get it.

You're right - shooting the Double-X from bulk would cost about the same as factory spooled HP5 or TMX. But you have to bulk load it. It would cost more than bulk loading HP5 or TMX. Sure, buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded, but lets you try it without as much commitment.

My original question about the price was based on an apparent misunderstanding that people shoot this film to save money over more common films. Apparently that's not the reason. That's fine with me. But I'm happy with the commonly available black and white films for my own use.

I think you still don't get it. TMAX 100 in a 100' roll is $90. You still have to bulk load that. I wasn't expecting everybody that read the thread to go out and buy some 'just to try it'. But one reads LOTS of queries from folks looking to try XX on the forums, on Flickr, etc. and I and a few other folks were wondering how much interest THERE MIGHT BE in doing this. Kodak said they would do it at x price for x many rolls. We expected that there MIGHT be enough people willing, but as we are not as clairvoyant as ol' Newt we needed to ask around to see. And exactly-

buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded

but surprisingly hardly at all more than buying TMAX100 in a 100' roll. I guess Kodak doesn't sell any TMAX100 in bulk, as it is so outrageously priced?

I'm really shocked that this is so difficult for people to understand. I did think the original post was pretty clear:

Wondering how much interest there would be among apug folks for getting Eastman Double-X (5222) movie film as factory spooled 100' rolls for bulk loaders.

I really didn't ask "How outraged can people get for being asked if they're interested in buying a film that is only available in large quantities in small quantities instead?" Oh, "for $10 more than a commonly used film." That's apparently the kicker. Everything is cheaper in bulk: oats, firewood, paint, beef, cheese. Some folks like buying a 1 lb block of cheese instead of a 50 lb block, as it is easier to deal with, there's no cutting and wrapping and storing. But what fools they are. Just cut it up and wrap it- a few flicks of the knife and you're done. And you've saved $300! Why ANYONE would ever buy a 1 lb hunk of cheese is beyond me.

 

[MattKing]

Hi sepiareverb:

I appreciate your efforts in inquiring and then starting this thread.

I think the problem that some people are having is that they just cannot believe/accept the fact that films like T-Max 100 are now priced as high as they are for a 100 foot roll.

$90.00 is a little high though - B & H has it for $60.00 with free shipping.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think you still don't get it. TMAX 100 in a 100' roll is $90. You still have to bulk load that. I wasn't expecting everybody that read the thread to go out and buy some 'just to try it'. But one reads LOTS of queries from folks looking to try XX on the forums, on Flickr, etc. and I and a few other folks were wondering how much interest THERE MIGHT BE in doing this. Kodak said they would do it at x price for x many rolls. We expected that there MIGHT be enough people willing, but as we are not as clairvoyant as ol' Newt we needed to ask around to see. And exactly- but surprisingly hardly at all more than buying TMAX100 in a 100' roll. I guess Kodak doesn't sell any TMAX100 in bulk, as it is so outrageously priced?

No one is outraged. You're just upset that not enough people want to go in on this deal on your favorite film. I understand being disappointed. The apparent outrage is misplaced.

I also have no idea where you're pricing TMX at $90 a roll but it's $59.95 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29118-USA/Kodak_8570541_TMX_35mm_100_Roll.html

I'm not saying this is "too expensive" for Double-X but I am suggesting it is more than I, and many other people, are likely to pay just to try out a new film.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hi sepiareverb:

I appreciate your efforts in inquiring and then starting this thread.

I think the problem that some people are having is that they just cannot believe/accept the fact that films like T-Max 100 are now priced as high as they are for a 100 foot roll.

$90.00 is a little high though - B & H has it for $60.00 with free shipping.

Bulk loading in general is no longer worth it to me. I have a roll of Arista Premium 400 aka re-branded Tri-X in the loader now but once I'm done with that I probably won't get another roll of anything. Too much trouble, not enough savings for it.

 

[fotch]

Your playing to a cheap crowd

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Your playing to a cheap crowd

He said it not me.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

So, do let me know when you've gotten those 100' rolls spun up for us and maybe I'll get one.

Sure I have a 700-800ft in the fridge. Special price for you $100 + shipping. I'll even hand draw a special label for you.

 

[cmacd123]

BTW, it is tradional for 100ft rolls of 35mm movie film to come on a "#10 Spool" AKA a "Daylight Spool" or an "Eyemo Spool".

The movie maker could load this into the camera under subduesd light and shoot off the fogged film at the start of the roll. (about 5 seconds worth) at the end of the roll there is also a bit of extra film to be fogged to protect the roll on the way from the camera to the can. The spool does not come in a bag, but instaed has a paper band arround the film.

When Kodak is quoting on 100ft rolls of 5222 thay are probaly figuing on the metal spool, and the "customer allowance" of ten extra feet of film for leaders and trailers. Kodak themselves package it in the dark so the extra film is useable. (they used to perforate the emulsion number on the leader, but they proably have given up on that these days).

The 400 and 1000 ft rolls come on a core in a bag nside a can. (the 1000ft might come on a 3 inch core, the 400 on a 2 inch core)

 

[AgX]

But such a reel with flanges might not fit the bulk loader.

 

[StoneNYC]

You guys are silly... That's really all I have to say...


~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

 

[frobozz]

But such a reel with flanges might not fit the bulk loader.

Fuji bulk slide film comes on those metal spools and in fact there are issues with using them in bulk loaders. I know with the Lloyd's loaders, the ribs on the inside of the removable side panel can rub against the spool. I just don't cinch down the big red knob *quite* all the way, but others have taken to grinding down the ribs a bit. But they do work OK.

Duncan

 

[frobozz]

If you were really dedicated to getting xx out to people you should have just bought the 1000ft reels, a set of cheap rewinds, and some black plastic bags and separate it out for your self instead. There's a thing called self reliance, and you don't need to ask a bunch of people to chip in $100 a can for cine stock and get pissy when people pointed out that the price is way high.

I remember fairly recently a member offered cine stock here respooled himself for $30-$50 a roll shipped. He had it asked if people wanted an it was at a fair price and it was snapped up. Simple.

That was me:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Note that when I had purchased those 400' rolls they were more like $145 instead of the current $160 or whatever. And not in a million years would I go into the business of cutting up 400' rolls of 5222 on a regular basis for that little money. I have all the equipment to do it right, and the cores are easy enough to come by, it's those durn bags and cans that are so difficult to find in bulk, cheap. But that's just for me, some guy. Kodak could definitely do it more cost-effectively than I could. Quite some time ago, on one of their "give us your suggestions" links on the movie film site, I suggested they do just that and even pointed them to their competition (Orwo) that was doing it as an example. Obviously they didn't listen to me, go figure

I wish that I could cut up a 400' roll into 4 100' rolls and fit them all back in the 400' can. Sadly, simple geometry prevents that! If the rolls are just a bit short, I can actually wedge two of them back in there. So here's a deal: anyone that wants 5222 badly enough to pay for a 400' can and only get 2 90-ish foot rolls for their money, I'll cut it up for you and keep the extra 200+' for myself! That's outrageous, of course, but still quite a bit cheaper than Kodak's proposed price for 100' rolls! I'll even make the same deal for 1000' rolls - however many smaller rolls I can wedge back in the original can and bag are yours, the leftover feet are mine. (If anyone seriously considers taking me up on this, let's talk - it's going to save money for me to buy the film and have Kodak ship it to me, rather than you buying it and then sending it to me, but if you already have the film and just need it cut up, that's fine too.)

Duncan

 

[frobozz]

Thanks to a tip in a PM, here is a source for a container for 100' spools of film:

Dead Link Removed

This is how movie film comes packaged when it is on a 100' camera spool. I would worry about the box alone protecting film on a core from light... as they may also be depending on the opaque metal spool and the opaque paper band to complete the lightproofing. But perhaps sealing it with some gaffer's tape would be good enough.

(I'm not going into the 5222 distribution business, remember, so this is for anyone else that might need such an item.)

Duncan

 

[Metroman]

Thanks to a tip in a PM, here is a source for a container for 100' spools of film:

Thank you Duncan, just what I need much cheaper than buying the cans. If you scroll down that page they have the Lighttight Foil bags for spooled film.