You're saying you're getting out there and
actually doing some photography with this film? Are you mad?
But seriously, to answer your question: there is no science in amateur densitometry/sensitometry tests. It's a festival of spurious correlations, unaccounted-for covariation, and measurement+operator variance so big it can be seen by one those swarms of Elon Musk satellites.
None of this stuff would even remotely get through the editor of (let alone be considered for peer review by) the journal of South Surinamese and Peloponnesian Gender Studies.
Enjoy this new film, not sure where to find it in Europe, and if they'll distribute it here I will buy my usual 100/200 test rolls for sure and optimise the film for my workflow. Seems like great stuff based on
@Huss samples.
Thank you for your comments. I am going to assume that you are trying to make a bona fide contribution to this thread. I apologize if I misread your post, as English is not my first language.
Nobody has made any claims here to produce work suitable for a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, I have stressed, repeatedly, that these results are not going to be "accurate," but, rather, are meant to give a kind of approximate, or "ballpark" estimate of the film's performance, esp. in how it compares to other popular films. Having said that, I have tried to control the process as much as is reasonable in an amateur setting. For example, my sensitometer, densitometer, and thermometer are calibrated and certified, very recently (2 months ago). The certification is valid for 12 months. The equipment was calibrated by the same professionals, to the same professional standards as most, if not all, currently operating film testing labs in the US. In fact, the equipment is meant to be used by lab personnel with very basic training and diagnostic skills, without requiring a Ph.D. to run. There's one button, that's it. You put the film in and you push the button. It would be hard to screw it up, but, yes, it is possible. I only ran the full test twice, plus spot-testing the third time. I'd need at least 100 trials to have any kind of statistical certainty. I also said that I'd make the raw data available, so you're welcome to use them, run your own analysis, and tell me where the errors are. I'd love to have constructive, substantive feedback!
The algorithms implemented here have been peer-reviewed many, many times over, since most of them have been around since the 1950s. And, yes, they do account for variance. That's the whole point. None of the results are "eye-balled" or "guesstimated."
Finally, your point about buying 100-200 rolls is spot-on. I cannot afford to buy that many, but perhaps you'll make a contribution to this thread with your own data coming from those rolls. That would be awesome.