And at such low to moderate contrasts films like for example HR-50, TMX, Delta 100, Provia 100F, Velvia 50 / 100 etc. achieve resolution values in the 120 to 150 lp/mm range (depending on the used lens).
If you'd read the segment on plate coating you'd know that you would not be able to coat a supercoating layer on the machine if T-Max 100 was multilayer.
How would these features show up in my photography? What would it look different to a person who didn't know what film I used?
We are talking about film, not glass plates.
In color film each color layer may have 3 separated layers (Fast+Medium+Slow) , totalling 9 sensitive layers.
View attachment 253347
See page 30: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles...wsletters_filmEss_04_How-film-makes-image.pdf
And you say that TMX has a single layer because glass plates ? Is this the evidence ?
There is a way
That's a terrific scan Les. How did you do it? What settings?
You are once again demonstrating that you read about 10% of the books you try to quote & understand even less.
The segment on plate coating describes the machine used until 2003 - and describes most packages as a single layer of AgX and a topcoat. If T-Max 100 had needed to be specially re-engineered for this coater, it would have been mentioned, especially as its other manufacturing eccentricities are mentioned elsewhere. Relative to the potential demand involved, T-Max 100 would have required major re-engineering to work on glass if it was a fully multilayer emulsion. For the demand at the time for specialist plates, that would have been deeply unlikely. If on the other hand, some small modifications to the extant slide-hopper coating package for T-Max 100 would make it coatable on prepared glass, then that would have been a more sensible business proposition. It is basic photo system engineering that you should coat in the least possible number of layers unless there are very strong reasons not to do so (equilibration and its effect on keeping for example).
You are once again demonstrating that you read about 10% of the books you try to quote & understand even less.
You are guessing... Why kodak has to mention you if they used a blended emulsion variant or not for coating glass plates ?
Look, multi layer is basic technology to obtain a large linear latitude like the one TMX sports, it would have been kafkian if Kodak had to renounce to those benefits for TMX because of some glass plates they were also selling. Lachlan, sorry, but this is hilaratingAren't you joking ?
See the TMY cross section, for sure (don't doubt it) TMX also has a cubic component for linear large latitude in the highlight, if you blend the two components that horizontal aligment of the T crystals would be a chaos. IMO your single layer coating of TMX is an elocubration without base, rumorology.
My view is that the double layer adds incredible performance to TMX, and that Kodak won't sacrifice that easy after developing the 9 sensitive layers for color. If you have a true evidence please post it, with the reference document and the author.
View attachment 253351
What is 3D emulsion in Tmax 400?
You never use an extra layer unless you absolutely must.
If TMX was single layer it would be the single pictorial Kodak product having a single layer.
All color films are multi layer, many sporting 9 sensitive layers. Ektachome... TMY, TMZ, TX and TXP are also multi layer. Why TMX has to be single layer ?
Let me use your words: "Again, you have very limited understanding of Photo System Engineering. You have repetitiously failed to disprove that much."
First you don't realize that the extra layer is an absolutely must to yield that insane linearity in the highlights:
1) The separated cubic layer efficiently prevents most of the infectious development from high sensitive T-Grains to the slow cubic blocks, preventing an early shouldering. Don't tell me you were not aware.
2) Placing the slow emulsion in the back makes it even slower from the casted shadows, which favors linearity in the extreme highlights, and this also favors linearity in the shadows because no low speed cubic blocks are casting shadows on the fast crystals.
3) If the cubic and T were blended then horizontal alignment of the T crystals would be lost, making the T emulsion less sensitive for the same silver amount and from the same grain (clumps) size.
Kodak engineers, with great effort, refined all the physics to place T crystals horizontal to catch well light and now you want to place all the T grains in arbitrary directions. Quite funny
Man, look, T emulsions are not much compatible with single layer coating.
Still, nothing is imposible, so just bring a reliable evidence of your weird statement, if TMX is the only film coated in a single sensitive layer this would stated somewhere, isn't it ?
To me, single doubt is Double-X, still sold for motion pictures.
Again all you're showing off is how very little you are aware of the actualities of the materials - and attempting to dress up that profound lack of knowledge with bumptious attitude. With modern crystal growth techniques you can make pretty much any curve shape you need ...
Because it’s not a colour film.Why TMX is the rare exception ?
Because it’s not a colour film.
In the late seventies/early eighties researchers at Kodak succeeded in making single layer Kodachrome.
It’s was a tiny bit grainier than the usual stuff, but sharper, cheaper and simpler to develop.
May Ron RIPStill, resurrecting Kodachrome would be a huge plus, and they do keep muttering about it.
Because it’s not a colour film.
if you want ultimate sharpness/resolution it’s quite natural.Helge, TMY, TX/TXP for sure (and probably TMZ) are made in two emulsion layers and they are not color films... To me it's quite hard to belive that for TMX Kodak renounced to double layer emulsion, because that insane latitude/linearity would be hard to obtain with a single layer.
That enormous resolution of T-MAX and CMS 20 II probably wouldn’t be possible with multiple layers.
This is the 1000:1 graph from Provia datasheet, I painted the extension to 140 and a possible 1.6:1 curve.
...........
Comparing Tmax 100 and Tmax 400, how large an print would there have to be to see practical differences in resolution, tones, or anything else?if you want ultimate sharpness/resolution it’s quite natural.
That enormous resolution of T-MAX 100 and CMS 20 II probably wouldn’t be possible with multiple layers.
I downloading the full res image... this rivals to many LF shots ! Incredible !
Speaking about the OP's Thread Topic, this deserves a Flextight or drum scan, it is a particular case where a great scanner makes a great difference for a large print, that 35mm slide can be printed very big with total quality.
https://www.adox.de/Photo/cms-20-reversal-processed-slide/
Even though I have a lowly v800 (I guess the useful discussion is over, may as well descend into irrelevance and await Godwin's arrival), "smear" isn't something I associate with the output. That sounds like poorly focused scanning (the lack of adjustable focus is a serious oversight on these things, personal opinion), or badly processed images.
Can you provide an example? I've seen a number of 120 film scans of very high quality done with an Epson. I
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?