Ok.
Don´t get me wrong but i never considered "trick" to be a nostalgic/oldfashioned word. Is there a new word for "trick" around today? Just asking.
I didn´t intend to start a technical discussion about what is new or what is a trick and what isn´t, i just wanted to point out to jogr that:
a) There are films which were intended for continuous agitation only, which applies to P30
b) that UN54 should differ a lot from P30 so it should be hard to conclude that every cinemafilm does benefit from D96/D76 and cont. agi.
c) its even possible that UN54 wasn´t intended as a cinemafilm at all
But as were allready discussing, P30 lacks full red sensitivity and has old-style-grain and probably old-style-layer-thickness. Whether the gelatin is as special hardened as it is with UN54 probably is questionable. If one now does call this tricks or different shouldn´t matter a lot, fact is that UN54 differs a lot from P30 - which is what i wanted to make clear.
Dünnschicht-Film (with an -Ü- not an -U-) was revolutionary in so far that the layer(s) of gelatin holding the silver were made thinner. I think this invention was made in the 50s or even 40s by a german manufacturer, maybe Adox, maybe Efke, i don´t know for sure.
One of the effects were more visible grain, but also more sharpness, i can´t explain why, but after this invention was made a lot of emulsions were desinged in that way, which should be one thing representing a new-style-emulsion. Apart from that fewer silver is needed and by that the film can be produced more economical.
This indicates that P30 still is old-style as it uses a lot of silver compared to other emulsions, which also might explain the rather high price of P30.
I also am not sure but if the layer(s) of gelatin holding the silver are rather thick, its harder for the developer to get deep into the layer(s) and do its job. This could be the reason why P30 does benefit from cont. agit. because its needed to get the developer deep into the layer(s). On a "modern" film with thinner layer(s) there might be not as much agitation needed - which by the way also could explain the pre-soak vs. no-pre-soak-debate, as a presoak might help a thick layer to swell and by that being able to take up the developer better than without pre-soak.
Now if its like that this could explain why the "myth" of pre-soak is still around, though a lot of people have come to the conclusion that pre-soak has no effect on developement. If its like i assume, pre-soak was helping old-style-emlusions but isn´t helping on new-style-emulsions - and this could be why there is the idea of pre-soak at all, but a lot of users not experiencing a difference with pre-soak, because they use modern films.
And by that, way of developement needed very well could be defined by design of the emulsion.
About Kodachrome: Kodachrome had a hell of layers, i also don´t know exactly, but it was like 30 or 40 different layers - and just because of that they had to make the layers very thin as the film would have become way too thick otherwise. An E6-film does around 16 layers i think.