Miracle Unmarked Film Find (Copex? Gigabit? Other?)

A few years a go I got a very long roll of 35mm film from a cardiac catheterization lab that was switching to digital.

The film sat in my freezer for a few years until I got around to testing it.

When I did test it, I got the following results:

1) no markings on the edges
2) very thin base (similar to the Ilford 72 exposure film from the 80s)
3) very slow, ei. 25 or 12
4) very, very, very fine grain, and very sharp
5) very contrasty

I started processing the film in T-max developer (just because that is what I had around) and got about 3 minutes with a contrast of around 0.6. I cooled to 17 degrees centigrade and got about 4 minutes, which was more manageable (Jobo CPP-2 allows cooling).

Then I tried dilute Rodinal. At about 100:1 I got about 6 minutes at 24 degrees centigrade with a contrast of about 0.6 to 0.7. I just processed a few rolls this way last night and still no grain to be seen with the 8x loupe.

(BTW this is rotary processing. I tried some technidol, but, as expected the development was un-even.)

11x14 prints from this film are spectacular! Reminds me of in the 80s of what one was to expect with Tech pan and technidol (though, I never got even development with that setup back in the 80s and gave up on that film)

So, it took me about 2 years to figure out how to process and expose this film, but the results are the most amazing thing I have seen in 35mm film in 30 years.

Now, I would like to have some more of this film (though I still have about 80 meters left).

First, none of the cardiac cath. labs in town use film, they have all converted to digital many years ago. Second, the Kodak and Agfa web sites to not describe any similar cine film and are useless. Third, I could not find any cath lab film on any discount or surplus web site.

From what I CAN find on the internet, I think the film I have is Agfa IC3B or IC1B and others have said that this is Agfa COPEX film (again, the Agfa web site is useless with respect to this).

From what I have also read on the internet, the Gigabit film is also Agfa COPEX.

Since my Agfa search demonstrated there were more than one type of COPEX, I was wondering from those that have tried the Gigabit film, how does it compare to my description of this cine film. Is it just as slow? I suspect that since it has special developer, it is just as contrasty and difficult to control.

You may already have thought of this but I'd be surprised if the lab hasn't kept purchase records of whom it used to obtain the film. This would be especially true if there was a Purchasing Dept responsible. For instance in Ford it is possible to trace from Purchase records all sorts of info which Records Retention policy requires.

Might take a bit of time and digging but it should be possible to get back to whom the supplier was, depending on what a "few years ago" is in terms of numbers.

Gigabit film never seemed to make it "big" on APUG. There are relatively few references to it. Strange in some ways given the pursuit of Ilford for ISO 25.

I have never used it but website pictures of its resolution seems to put it on a par with what you say about your film.

pentaxuser

Most of the Heart Cath lab film, down through the years has been Copex pan Rapid. Ilford and Kodak have also made film for this application,but they never offered it as a private label film. So if it was not labeled by these two then it is private label Agfa. We made three different developers for this application to change the contrast of this film.

pentaxuser said:

Gigabit film never seemed to make it "big" on APUG. There are relatively few references to it. Strange in some ways given the pursuit of Ilford for ISO 25.

Click to expand...

Isn't that mainly due to its relative lack of availability and it's price? I think if it were less expensive, easier to get, and didn't "require" a proprietary developer, people might be really excited by it.

DrPablo said:

Isn't that mainly due to its relative lack of availability and it's price? I think if it were less expensive, easier to get, and didn't "require" a proprietary developer, people might be really excited by it.

Click to expand...

As far as availability is concerned, I admit that I didn't think this was a problem but that may be because I am UK based and the stockist I am thinking of is here in the U.K.

In terms of price and special developer, I suppose it all depends on how much high resolution is worth to those who seek it and aren't happy with Pan F or D100 and say Perceptol and/or decide not to move up to MF or LF as the solution.

In terms of price the same could be said of IR film, especially Kodak which is very expensive but which has unique qualities that no other IR films can replicate such as speed or few can in terms of its wispy, ghostly quality because it lack an anti-halation base.

You pays your money and takes your choice as they say.

pentaxuser

ice-racer,

There once were offered several microfilms by the Gigabit company. All called Gigabitfilm and with two speeds, 25 and 40 with their developers. Of a third speed of 80 I am not sure.
I say once, as their website is anything but informative about their range of films at the moment. Most interesting at their site however are the articles of Detlef Ludwig.

Is it kind of a magenta color? It may be Varicath film. I have a 500 foot roll of it. It was originally made by Agfa, later by ITT, I think. Obsolete, since digital imaging became available. Mine is in a blue container. I shoot it at ISO 12 and develop in D-76 1:1 for 6 1/2 minutes. It was made for rapid processing and had it's own developer and fixer. Being that slow, it will last for decades if stored properly. You're right, it is amazingly sharp and grain free. If that's what you have, it is a continuous tone film. You just have to get a handle on the development.

I have used a fair amount of Gigabit it looks like this:


It's pretty contrasty even when used with the SPUR? dev I have heard that some people have processed Copex in Rodinal 1:100.
I have a kind of mini review of the film here:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/03/gigabit-film-gigabit-film-is-slow.html
Hope this helps
Mark

Mark,

Among the film developers the Spur company offers there are three for processing micro-films and one for processing a document-film.

glennfromwy said:

...It may be Varicath film. I have a 500 foot roll of it. It was originally made by Agfa, later by ITT, I think...

Click to expand...

The Marquette company states that their Varicath Blue film is made by Ilford and that their Varicath I, II and III films are made by Agfa.

glennfromwy said:

Is it kind of a magenta color? It may be Varicath film. I have a 500 foot roll of it. It was originally made by Agfa, later by ITT, I think. Obsolete, since digital imaging became available. Mine is in a blue container. I shoot it at ISO 12 and develop in D-76 1:1 for 6 1/2 minutes. It was made for rapid processing and had it's own developer and fixer. Being that slow, it will last for decades if stored properly. You're right, it is amazingly sharp and grain free. If that's what you have, it is a continuous tone film. You just have to get a handle on the development.

Click to expand...

My film base is more of a light bluish color. The sprocket holes are odd, they are more oval than what I am used to seeing. What I have is probably around ISO 12. It came to me in a black plastic bag.

Mark Antony said:

It's pretty contrasty even when used with the SPUR? dev I have heard that some people have processed Copex in Rodinal 1:100.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am using Rodinal 1:100 in the Jobo. Here is a link to my processing setup for dilute Rodinal: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=217837#post217837

pentaxuser said:

Gigabit film never seemed to make it "big" on APUG. There are relatively few references to it. Strange in some ways given the pursuit of Ilford for ISO 25.

Click to expand...

A film that gets 1000 lp/mm is pretty useless Even 400lp/mm isn't something most lenses could dream about. If you use anything larger then 35mm it gets even less interesting.


The other thing resolution isn't the only thing that matters.

Nick,

Those microfilms processed for pictorial use are often rejected as those resolutions given are far beyond the resolution of our lenses. This is true.
(Of course resolution on its own is not decisive, as it has to go along with high microcontrast at the yielded image)

But there is another aspect, which is the subject contrast. Those huge resolution figures can only be achieved with an extreme high subject micro contrast also not typical for our work. However, these films will still yield higher resolutions on subjects with low or medium micro contrast than common films.

If this all goes along with fine grain, we still have to look at macro contrast in the sense of the tonal rendition.

Tech Pan is pretty sweet in 4x5 and medium format. My 4x5 lenses still project details small enough to get lost in the grain structure of most films; so irrespective of the lp/mm resolution, Tech Pan still allows those finest details to be better defined even in LF.

Nick Zentena said:

A film that gets 1000 lp/mm is pretty useless Even 400lp/mm isn't something most lenses could dream about. If you use anything larger then 35mm it gets even less interesting.


The other thing resolution isn't the only thing that matters.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the resolving power on this film I have been using. I just use Zeiss optics at F8 on a tripod, and the image resolution 'is what it is.'

My fantastic impression of the 16x20 I made is the almost total lack of grain. It compares similarly to a 6x9cm enlargement to the same size with TMY 120 rollfilm. In a way it was almost frustrating because it made my 6x9 system seem redundant. (though, I always feel larger negatives are less tedious to print: an edge-to-edge sharp 16x20 enlargement of a 35mm frame is a big deal in my darkroom, with laser alignment, APO High Mag Lens, Glass Negative carrier, anti-static duster, air blower, Peak 2000 edge focuser, precice diffuser box opening alignment over negative, precice negative alignment over optical circle, etc.)