Special order Eastman Double-X in 4x5 sheet.

[StoneNYC]

Ya, the first thought that came to my mind was "What kind of film did he use?"

 

[jpreston]

Hey Jeff,

Just saw this thread, I made my own as well

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I was the one who originally approached Keith about having this happen, I'm glad to see it's taken off well

Stone,

I read about it on Facebook and thought I'd share with the apug folks to hopefully make that minimum order .

Jeff

 

[jpreston]

Looks like it was a little chilly that day... .

 

[Axle]

Double-X is a wonderful film! Responds well in HC-110 B, although rather grainy. I've started using Xtol (both stock and 1+1) with fantastic results (Exposing at ASA-250). I've signed up for a box of 50 from Keith! Cost 90$ which is a fair price point. When I had signed up the total was up to 6. Examples below from the 35mm stock.

HC-110


Xtol (Stock)


Xtol (1+1)

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

I read about it on Facebook and thought I'd share with the apug folks to hopefully make that minimum order .

Jeff

It's amazing how fast it spread, way faster than I even thought.

It seems either people love it and are totally excited by the idea, or have no idea what the film even is, and keep mistaking it for Super-XX which it isn't, lol! It's funny (although annoying) or they don't understand why anyone would bother cutting one film when there's other film available, (though NONE in 200 ASA) but it's obvious they haven't seen it perform, such a beautiful film

 

[MartinP]

Just a thought, has anyone actually got a response from Kodak about the production of sheet film?

It is usual that the base material for sheets is much thicker, or completely different (for Kodak's 'Estar' polyester tradename). If sheets are cut from the same big reels as the 35mm and 16mm stock, then won't they be sub-optimally floppy??

 

[StoneNYC]

Just a thought, has anyone actually got a response from Kodak about the production of sheet film?

It is usual that the base material for sheets is much thicker, or completely different (for Kodak's 'Estar' polyester tradename). If sheets are cut from the same big reels as the 35mm and 16mm stock, then won't they be sub-optimally floppy??

The guy (Keith) said Kodaks response was good but in order for them to give him the financial details and do the research he needed to get up a list of potential buyers before they would actually do the work, so the more the merrier.

It's kodak, they wouldn't cut something on a base if it would be crappy and give them bad publicity... IF they cut it, I'm sure it will be stable.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

I've got questions about the base as well, I shoot a lot of 5222 in 35mm, and can't quite reconcile that film thickness in a film holder… Now that I said that I'm going to go see how much thinner it seems than HP5+ sheet film. Back shortly.

I don't have anything that will give a numerical measurement, but two layers of Double-X are ever so thicker than one layer of HP5 8x10 film. Now to see if I can find some micron measurements for both bases somewhere…


From(there was a url link here which no longer exists):

175 micron polyester sheet film base

From here:

Kodak VISION Color Print Film (ESTAR) base has a nominal thickness of 0.0047 inches (119 microns).

 

[Karl A]

Double X is on an acetate base, for the record...

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...s/BW_Negative/Technical_Data/5222_techpub.pdf

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak Double X

Double X is on an acetate base, for the record...

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...s/BW_Negative/Technical_Data/5222_techpub.pdf

Thanks, I'm getting confused between the LFF and APUG threads and also there are a few APUG versions of this thread... Lol, they need to be merged or something because I thought I posted that link on here but it was apparently only on the other thread.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ya, posting of identical messages to multiple boards confuses me too. I get so confused that I stop reading all of them. Ha ha.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ya, posting of identical messages to multiple boards confuses me too. I get so confused that I stop reading all of them. Ha ha.

I kind of have to read them all since I started this whole thing.... Lol

 

[malcolmma]

I have committed 10 boxes, and I want to know will Kodak supply 120 format 5222 for group buy option?

 

[frobozz]

I have committed 10 boxes, and I want to know will Kodak supply 120 format 5222 for group buy option?

There's some question about whether the 35mm film base is thick enough to work when cut into 4x5 sheets; for 120 I believe it's too thick! Wouldn't the normal length of film and paper rolled together on a spool be too big a diameter to fit in a lot of cameras?

Duncan

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Double X is on an acetate base, for the record...

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...s/BW_Negative/Technical_Data/5222_techpub.pdf

Then, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (also from APUG) should help:

There are two basic types of film stock: Triacetate & Polyester.

Triacetate stock made by Kodak has a nominal base thickness of 142 microns. (0.0056")
Polyester stock made by Kodak has a nominal base thickness of 119 microns. (0.0046")

 

[frotog]

I still have about a hundred feet of aerographic double x in my fridge - unexposed end rolls from an aerographic photographer. It's coated on a 2.5mil estar base - way too thin to use with a conventional 4x5 or 5x7 holder (for comparison, tri-x 4x5 sheet is coated on a 7mil estar base). The only way to use the stuff I have is with an adhesive holder. It's a truly unique film. It doesn't seem to have any anti-halation backing as specular highlights exhibit halide migration effects. Also, no shoulder at all which, if handled in a non-hamfisted fashion, can yield beautiful prints from high key exposures. In my experience, prints from xx negs souped in pyro appear even sharper than my prints from pyro fp4 negs. It would be interesting to see how much of an effect, if any, base thickness has on resolution.

Has Mr. can ham confirmed base thickness?

 

[bdial]

35 and 120 are the same thickness (at least for still films), though they don't seem like it because of the width.
4x5 is thicker, so the sheets might fit a little loosely in holders, but it probably isn't enough to matter much for most purposes.

 

[Axle]

I haven't heard anything about the base thickness. But this was just posted on Facebook.

It is time for another update on the co-op for Kodak special order 4x5 Double X film. I have been trying to find the words to express how amazing this all is. I first asked about interest on Monday. Now, Thursday morning I have 42 names on the list and 123 boxes. Who could have imagined. If you have questions about what Double X emulsion is, please read the comments on the two earlier posts. Thank you to everybody who has shared about the project. All of you make things like this happen.

It's looking good!

 

[Karl A]

I believe 120 is actually thinner than 35 mm, which in turn is thinner than sheet film. 35 mm needs to be stronger for movie cameras I think and so must have enough thickness so the sprocket holes won't break, unlike 120

 

[frobozz]

I believe 120 is actually thinner than 35 mm, which in turn is thinner than sheet film. 35 mm needs to be stronger for movie cameras I think and so must have enough thickness so the sprocket holes won't break, unlike 120

That's what seems to be the case if the numbers here are correct:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Duncan

 

[removed account4]

There's some question about whether the 35mm film base is thick enough to work when cut into 4x5 sheets; for 120 I believe it's too thick! Wouldn't the normal length of film and paper rolled together on a spool be too big a diameter to fit in a lot of cameras?

Duncan

hi duncan

from what i have just read and understand the film will be on the 5222 base which is thicker than 120 + "normal" 35mm film but a teensy weensy bit thinner than 4x5 film ..
there's info on the canham camera facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc/131324393576850

john

 

[smithdoor]

I found this looking up D 96 developer

Dead Link Removed

Dave

 

[StoneNYC]

I found this looking up D 96 developer

Dead Link Removed

Dave

Yea as I sad on LFF, I've sent a message to the main site guy but didn't want to sign up to another forum, but if momentum slows (seems steady at 20-30 boxes a day) I'll sign up to get more people. But thanks it's appreciated

 

[cmacd123]

As others have mentioned, there are many thicknesses of Poly film. Typically it is made slightly thiner than the acetate base in order to arrive at a film with about the same overall stiffness.

The high strength and tear Resistance of Poly allows the 2.5 mil base to be used, I recall using Microfilm stock back in the 1980 era that came 215 feet on what is commonly considered as a 100ft spool.

Sheet film is normally on a thicker (7 Mil) stock, no mater if made from Poly or Acetate. Although Poly is generally preferred as the disadvantages of Poly in other uses (Light Piping and failure to yield in a camera jam) don't apply to sheet film.

I am not sure if the proposal in this case is to just cut some sheet film sizes chunks from a Master roll of 5 mil 5222/7222 stock or to prepare some sheet film base with 5222 coating.

 

[frobozz]

I am not sure if the proposal in this case is to just cut some sheet film sizes chunks from a Master roll of 5 mil 5222/7222 stock or to prepare some sheet film base with 5222 coating.

It's got to be the former; I can't even imagine the minimums Kodak would require to do the latter.

Duncan