Backing paper or not, wouldn't they need to commit to running on a completely different film material...120 film isn't different from 35mm in just width and sprocket holes.
Converted in which direction? 120 base to 35mm format, or 35mm base to 120 format? I have some 35mm Ilford from the 1980s, can't even remember which B&W emulsion at the moment, that had a thin base to accommodate a 72 exposure cassette. It was dreadful stuff to work with....
Though in the past Maco converted mismatched bases, and there was not much protest.
Backing paper or not, wouldn't they need to commit to running on a completely different film material...120 film isn't different from 35mm in just width and sprocket holes.
Type 120 base is thinner than type 135 base.
yes, often 120 is rather different than 35, and "sheet" is also different. "roll" ir 120 is about 3 mils thick, 35 is about 5 mils and sheet is 6 or 7 mils. Movie stock in 35, 16 and even super 8 is the same thickness as 35mm still film.
Many makers use Polyester for both "roll" and "Sheet"
the 72 exposure rolls referred to by another poster were on a thin Polyester base, which resulted in a greater Tendency to curl. (some techies would blame something called "Core Set") I don't believe the experiment was successful, the 10 rolls I bought of it were on close out from Freestyle and I might still have one or two in my freezer, now quite a bit fogged of course from storage.
Are you speaking about films like Ilford Hp5 135-72 ?
I got no problems with it.
They where as flat as others after washing and drying.
WE may not NEED all these new threads, but I do. I don't look elsewhere, I look HERE!......Regards!There's talk that the run already happened.
I wonder why we need all these new threads. This has been discussed pretty thoroughly elsewhere.
You follow one thread and ignore the others?WE may not NEED all these new threads, but I do. I don't look elsewhere, I look HERE!......Regards!
I wonder if they reached out to local processing labs around the world, and will just give you the address to the nearest Kodak verified lab.
We're not talking 35 mm film. It's all about Super 8. Verified labs will not only process the Super 8 film, they will scan it and put it on 'the cloud' as a part of the processing.The question: do such Kodak verified labs exist? Are you sure?
And why is it necessary to process the film at these fabled Kodak verified labs?
Still, could always take the exposed Ekta to a lab processing Fuji film... any lab processing E6, actually.
They had a sale on Provia 100F last month, probably to sell off some idle stock that was going to expire?This is good. We need a second player in the E-6 market again. Don't get me wrong, Fujichrome Provia and Velvia are top notch films, but they're not as inexpensive as they were when I returned to film in 2010. In 2010, I could get 5 rolls of Fujichrome for $30. Today, B&H wants $14/roll for the Provia and 11.50 for the Velvia 50. Usually it's the Velvia 50 that's more expensive than the Provia. It makes me wonder if B&H knows something about Provia that we don't know.
If Kodak can bring out their Ektachrome and have it competitively priced with Fuji, I just might switch to Kodak for the ISO 100 reversal film (the Velvia 50 is just plain magic, though!).
They had a sale on Provia 100F last month, probably to sell off some idle stock that was going to expire?
Also be aware that the 35mm 5 packs will not be available anymore from i believe March onwards?
The sale at that time clearly stated that it was short dated with a 5/18 expiration date.I dont think think that sale has anything to do with film that was near expiration date.
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?