Super XX

[Mark Layne]

Someone told me that 35mm S-XX is available from Kodak in 400' rolls as movie stock ,approx $127.00/roll

Can anybody confirm this?

Mark

 

[david b]

I am sure Kodak could confirm it.

 

[jim appleyard]

I belive it is. Not too long ago I did see something on a company's website that says they stock it. However, do you think I can remember the name of the company???
As Indiana Jones said, "It's not the age, it the mileage."

Perhaps a Kodak search, as david suggests, or Google.

 

[jim appleyard]

I belive it is. Not too long ago I did see something on a company's website that says they stock it. However, do you think I can remember the name of the company???
As Indiana Jones said, "It's not the age, it's the mileage."

Perhaps a Kodak search, as david suggests, or Google.

 

[fhovie]

Be careful about movie film. Some of it has a coating on the back to protect it in a movie camera. This backing has to be abraded off I believe. It is likely beyond the scope of an amateur (or anyone without the "machine") to remove this coating.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Kodak manufactures two B&W motion picture films Eastman 5231 (Plus-X; ISO 64T, 80D) and 5222 (Double-X; ISO 200T, 250D). There is information for both on Kodak's website. The ISO ratings are for printing on positive film stock which is contrastier than paper. Therefore, if you purchase 5231 or 5222 I would suggest rating them at 125D and 400D respectively. If you can purchase "short ends" you can get this film for $0.10 a foot!. One company which sells these films is Film Emporium www.filmemporium.com or you can google "short ends" for sellers.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Be careful about movie film. Some of it has a coating on the back to protect it in a movie camera. This backing has to be abraded off I believe. It is likely beyond the scope of an amateur (or anyone without the "machine") to remove this coating.

Only certain color negative films have an insoluble carbon black antihalation coating and it's easily removeable once you know what to do. In the past I developed many rolls of 5254 color negative. The B&W films do not have this coating and are more like still films.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The movie film is Double-X, not Super-XX, an interesting film, but not the old classic.

 

[wildbill]

Steven Soderburg is shooting a movie right now "The Good German" here in LA entirely on black and white. I've assumed it's double x and told my buddy who was working on it to get some "waste" for me. Anything under 250' is usually thrown away. He didn't pull through and now he's on another job.

 

[jim appleyard]

One company which sells these films is Film Emporium www.filmemporium.com or you can google "short ends" for sellers.

That's the website I went to.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I thought I remember it like that, SuperXX is an amunition we used to shoot in our hunting rifles!
Dave

Nope. Super X (one "X") is made by Winchester - the "other" Winchester Ammunition was "Super Speed". I have **NO** idea what the difference between the two was.

Kodak's film was Super XX (two "X"s).

 

[lee]

Kodak's film was Super XX (two "X"s) and pronounced Super Double X

lee\c

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

I just happened upon this in my search for cheap film - $10 100 ft. rolls of 5222 are remarkably tempting for my Canonet.

How do you go about bulk rolling the stuff? Do cinema reels fit in Watson/Lloyd bulk loaders or is there some other process necessary?

(Perhaps if enough people were interested, we could lobby J&C or Freestyle to purchase and bulk-load the film for the same final cost as Classic Pan/Arista.EDU?)

 

[Dave Parker]

Most any 35mm film will 'fit' in the loaders, it depends on if they need to be sprocketed, also another thing to take into account most movie films have a backing on it, that will need to be removed, and most film cameras like the canonet require a spocketed film to work, the un-spoketed films will not always load and advance corectly.

Dave

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This was shot on Double-X cine stock. Grainy stuff, but kinda interesting. It's naturally a little less contrasty than most still films, because it's designed to be printed to print film for the screen, where it picks up some contrast.

Double-X and Super-XX are both medium speed b&w panchromatic films, but that's about where the similarity ends. Double-X doesn't have the huge density range that Super-XX had. The spectral sensitivity curve also looks different.

 

[Gerald Koch]

How do you go about bulk rolling the stuff? Do cinema reels fit in Watson/Lloyd bulk loaders or is there some other process necessary?

I use these films extensively and really like them. Two things about bulk loading Eastman 5231 and 5222.

First, the film base is a bit thicker than still film and so you can only get about 30 exposures in a cassette. However, on the plus side this film dries complete flat, no cupping or twisting whatsoever!!!

Second, if the bulk roll is much longer than 100 feet the roll is too big to fit in bulk loaders. The core is also twice the diameter of a still film core. I rigged myself a winder to wind off smaller rolls from 400 foot rolls.

 

[clay]

I think this 5222 stuff is great for a vintage look. It reminds me of the Tri-X from about 1970. A little grainier than the modern Tri-X, but pretty forgiving overall. I just use my darkroom and wind it directly into the cassettes by hand from the 400 foot roll. I find the developing times are just about the same as with the 35mm Tri-X.

 

[Mark Layne]

I think this 5222 stuff is great for a vintage look. It reminds me of the Tri-X from about 1970. A little grainier than the modern Tri-X, but pretty forgiving overall. I just use my darkroom and wind it directly into the cassettes by hand from the 400 foot roll. I find the developing times are just about the same as with the 35mm Tri-X.

I shot some of the double X this weekend and the tonality looks good-just looking at the negatives.
I also shot some 5302 Release Positive film I found in the store here. Seems to be about 4 ASA, needing perhaps a green filter, contrasty but could be tamed, and looks grainless. Tech Pan replacement?
Mark

 

[mongo141]

I have been debating buying some of the 5231. can you provide some info about your use of the stuff. ie. EI, developing times/temps, how it looks .... 99% of the shooting I do is "Sunny 16"
Dave

 

[Gerald Koch]

I have been debating buying some of the 5231. can you provide some info about your use of the stuff. ie. EI, developing times/temps, how it looks .... 99% of the shooting I do is "Sunny 16"
Dave

Kodak rates 5231 at 80D (64T) and 5222 at 250D (200T). Both have reduced red sensitivity and higher blue sensitivity. These films are intended to be printed on higher than normal contrast positive film. I therefore suggest rating them at 125 and 400 respectively and extending development for higher contrast. I recommend HC-110 or Xtol for both films.

 

[mongo141]

That was kind of my thinking after reading Kodak's spec on the stuff, and HC110 is what I use most. Thanks, Dave

 

[Mike-D]

Fine Grain Release Positive is blue-sensitive only. A green filter would probably be counterproductive. Its used for making theatrical prints from black and white cine negatives.

Mike D