Double XX Like Old Tri-X Or Better?

[braxus]

Yup. Getting way off topic here.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yup. Getting way off topic here.

Not off topic but way over my head.

 

[flavio81]

Double X gives sharp results when reversed and scanned. If IIRC Dr5 also claimed that Delta 100 gives sharp results when reversed in their process and is one of the sharpest films for reversal.

We're not discussing if you can or cannot get "sharp" results when doing reversal.

The point is that negative films, developed as a negative, are sharper than a comparable reversal film, and this is even more pronounced for color films.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Here's the complexity: 5222 and 400TX (and the F-9 era TX too) seem likely to deliver about the same usable resolution in a neg/ pos system for still imaging, however above about 20 cyc/mm, 400TX is able to more usefully address that resolution (microcontrast etc) in terms of MTF, with 5222's MTF falling away much faster - while at very low frequencies (5 cyc/mm and lower) 5222 seems to deliver much higher MTF response than 400TX. Things get a bit more complicated again when compared off against 70's TX - it seems to delivers slightly higher sharpness at low frequencies (but 5222 still outperforms it), but travels largely inline with modern TX as it approaches & passes 20 cyc/mm. However 70's TX has much worse granularity than modern 400TX or 5222, limiting its information capacity (just as low sharpness can also limit information capacity in other ways). The trade-off for stills use seems to be that as 400TX is used for 135 & 120 formats, moderate to higher frequency MTF matters much more to sharpness performance in intended end-use scenarios than low/ very low frequency MTF (which matters more in bigger formats) - and a small reduction in very low frequency sharpness may be overall beneficial in terms of overall information capacity/ transmission in still imaging use in 135/ 120. As for cinema, 5222's MTF will indubitably have relevance to maximising apparent sharpness within the all the stages from camera neg to screen in the B&W cinema post-production process (without overdoing it - the SPSE Handbook emphasises that MTF must be thought of as applying across an entire system - in this case from camera to screen - rather than to discrete products with no systematic considerations) while minimising apparent granularity (which a lower MTF at higher frequencies will do) - the ultra sharp resolution of extremely fine detail being perceived to have been of much less importance in B&W motion picture. 5222's MTF also seems to give some hints as well as to why T-grain emulsions would not necessarily represent an imaging quality improvement for B&W motion picture use.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

The point is that negative films, developed as a negative, are sharper than a comparable reversal film, and this is even more pronounced for color films.

That's an apple vs orange comparison. The question is whether a B&W negative film like Double X (or Adox CMS 20ii) when reversal processed gives any less sharp results than the standard negative processing for scanning based workflows. At least for Adox CMS 20ii this should be an easy question to answer by either Studio 13 or @Henning Serger who have done extensive tests on this film and claim to have produced top quality results.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The question is whether a B&W negative film... when reversal processed gives any less sharp results than the standard negative processing for scanning based workflows.

Yes, they're visibly less sharp when reversal processed and scanned.

CMS20II is a bad example to use for comparisons because of its rather extreme nature (it's a Copex document film) & requirement for off-label development in neg/ pos use. Reversal processing somewhat brings it under control in low contrast situations at least.