Where would film technology be now?

img421.jpg

H
img421.jpg

  • Tel
  • Apr 26, 2025
  • 1
  • 1
  • 28
Caution Post

A
Caution Post

  • 2
  • 0
  • 44
Hidden

A
Hidden

  • 1
  • 0
  • 40
Is Jabba In?

A
Is Jabba In?

  • 3
  • 0
  • 47
Dog Opposites

A
Dog Opposites

  • 2
  • 3
  • 155

Forum statistics

Threads
197,483
Messages
2,759,762
Members
99,514
Latest member
cukon
Recent bookmarks
0

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
I don't think Moore's Law even applies to computers any more. In the beginning, processor and memory capabilities increased at a neck-break pace. But for many years it has just been creeping up in small steps each year.
Reportedly it's still going, though barely. At some point the original version will have to stop due to reaching the physical limits of how small you can make a switch (cramming more SRAM memory cells on a given die) and be replaced with something more pragmatic.
Smaller components doesn't mean faster switching rates anymore though. Parallelism is the name of the game, and not all tasks are equally suited for parallelism, some not at all.
It's Seymour Crays old Tyranny of Numbers rearing its head again, in another form.
Something exciting will happen in the next few years though (as in nothing really exciting has happened for forty years, other than the slow march of Moores Law).

Moore's Law is a good example of a self-fulfilling prophesy. There is nothing that would have hindered it going faster, slower or go in plateaued steps, if Moore had observed another trend in the latter half of the sixties.

There are many fields where a similar pseudo arbitrary law would have had a similar effect.
It's "just" fear of being out-competed that drives it.
If Rowland Mowrey or some other senior scientist had set the aggressive "law" of the doubling of quantum efficiency of film every five years, I'll bet it would have happened. At least for some time.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,303
Format
Multi Format
How about a non-silver halide based film with higher ISO? No, please don't call it digital.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,021
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
B&W research was cut back in the 80s. There was no real market for it. Really!

There was a joke at Kodak that a really high speed film could be made with good grain and sharpness, and it didn't use Silver. The CTO was then informed that there was only one tiny problem. It used Platinum!

PE
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,303
Format
Multi Format
B&W research was cut back in the 80s. There was no real market for it. Really!

There was a joke at Kodak that a really high speed film could be made with good grain and sharpness, and it didn't use Silver. The CTO was then informed that there was only one tiny problem. It used Platinum!

PE
I guess film with gold in the emulsion for many reasons is not a good idea.
 

Mr Bill

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,436
Format
Multi Format
Film was always HDR.

Here's something I thought I had posted here before, but I guess not.

This is a brief quote from the article where the graph was published: Kodak "Tech bits" (Issue no 1, 1990) about T-max 100 and 400 films; by Gordon Brown:
Some of you who are long-time readers of our technical pamphlets may remember one, published in 1966, claiming that the luminance recording range of Kodak Plus-X Pan film was 1,000,000 to 1. A member of our scientific staff wondered if this would apply to newer black-and-white films with Kodak T-Grain Emulsion. We've tested these films and we're happy to say they do
.
Of course these extreme ranges are not very useful for normal pictorial photography, and the article points this out. Still, the potential recording range is very large.

00YNHc-338803584.jpg
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,192
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
B&W research was cut back in the 80s. There was no real market for it. Really!
PE
Are speaking from a sales perspective.?
Had B&W sort of plateaued in the 80's, and the available films were fine....they met the demands of photographers at that point.?
Thank You
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
It depends on the film, on the scene/exposure and on the scanner.

Densities in negative film (bw or color) are not a challenge for basic scanners, they easily take 2.8D desnities that woud hard to print in the darkroom. Deepest underexposed shadows in Velvia may reach 3.8D, and to recover all detail there a drum may be required.
It's not enough to just punch through with enough light, if your sensor and optics bloom, flare and gets oversaturated.
That's why the tiny, tiny aperture of the drum scanner in that instance is a good idea.

Problem is not maping colors in the slide, problem is that monitors/TVs have a color triangle that is different than the velvia one, also dynamic range of velvia surpases the one possible in the TVs. An slide is an slide, its greatness cannot flow in the TCP/IP networks...
Somewhat ironically, considering everyone always mentioning slides limited DR, nothing beats a well exposed slide projected with a good projector in a darkened room, for range, colours and resolution..
 
Last edited:

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
B&W research was cut back in the 80s. There was no real market for it. Really!

There was a joke at Kodak that a really high speed film could be made with good grain and sharpness, and it didn't use Silver. The CTO was then informed that there was only one tiny problem. It used Platinum!

PE
It's strange that at the least two electron sensitization has not been applied to the TMAX range?
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Looking back, there was NOT tremendous evolution in B&W film emulsions from the 1960s to the 1990s...Tmax emulsions were launched, but many photographers preferred trusty Tri-X over the new stuff!
In color film, there was more evolution than in B&W...first, faster emulsions with ASA 400, then finer grain in the ISO 400 films being very similar to ISO 100 emulsions!

So where would we be today in films, if digital had not bouldered over the film world?!...I don't think a whole lot different that what we have today...simply more varieties of emulsions, rather than emulsions dying off like soldiers on Civil War battlegrounds!

Not many emulsions have been killed off recently (any?) without getting replaced with something similar or better soon after.

There was some intriguing and sometimes exciting ideas, that got taken out of the mothballs too late just before digigeddon, when the film manufactures really started feeling the dragon breathing down their neck and their projections didn't fit and/or their own digital arms suddenly revealed themselves to the public at large, to be as halfhearted as they had always been.

Analog Photography had the Silver barrier. Since 1850 to 2000 insane amounts in R+D had been invested yet, with diminishing returns, but industry was still using the same than Archer and Le Gray 150 years before: Silver halide crystals ...so a revolutionary improvement in performance would have been dificult. Perhaps a bit less grain for the speed, a bit more DR, and for sure a more eco friendly manufacturing/processing.

There is no inherent barrier in using the same basic material for a long time.
An analogy could be mild steel or silicon. Mild steel has been used extensively also since the 1850s, but is used in new ways still with incremental tweaks and, sometimes revolutionary improvements that make the basic material stronger, less brittle or less prone to corrosion.
Same with sillicon and silicon dioxide/silica. It's used extensively for concrete and windowpanes and have been for thousands of years. Yet there is still significant improvements made to the mixtures and composites for various uses.
Silicon is of course also use as the substrate for integrated circuits and has been for sixty years.

It's unfortunately very common to have huge amounts of token RnD resources put in by a company to a research center, only to never have the results of said research used, because it doesn't fit in with the current "paradigm" or sales infrastructure.
A commonly sited example is Xerox PARC, where all the technology you are using right now was if not invented, then made into a practical and useable form in the seventies (plus more and often better, but that's another far longer story). Xerox did nothing with it apart from commercialising the laser printer, and putting out an insanely priced workstation in the early 80s.
Other examples are Bell Labs, IBM and Microsoft research.

Similarly there was a tonne of film research at Kodak, Fuji and Agfa done through the years, that could have been put into products with a bit more corporate muscle behind it.
It's possible to get silver halide film up to ISO 24000 with acceptable results. That has been demonstrated numerous times. The problem of keep ability could have been solved in a number of ways.
For example:
https://books.google.dk/books?id=kkPBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=iso+24000+film&source=bl&ots=m62L9pbEoF&sig=ACfU3U1PsnZJh_053pyRug5CfEgj2TX7Nw&hl=da&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMma6t1rTmAhWKLMAKHR-QCxUQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=iso 24000 film&f=false

Good Enough is often deemed as "what is possible" until someone comes along and shows otherwise with force and money behind them, or changes the rules completely as happened with photography.

I believe it self-evident to anyone well versed in the art, that film is the vastly technically superior image recording medium/method.
Its quantum efficiency, while not unimportant and is something that would be nice to have addressed, is a matter that can be overcome with a bit of ingenuity from the enthusiast.
Bounced flash and radio controlled flash, for starters is readily available, will produce beautiful results and is not a compromise at all, as some seem to think.
Controlling light has always been part of the art.
 
Last edited:

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
Kodak "Tech bits" (Issue no 1, 1990) about T-max 100 and 400 films; by Gordon Brown:
.
00YNHc-338803584.jpg


Great reference ! Thanks for posting

The amazing thing is that D-76 stock was used in this test !
 
Last edited:

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Great reference ! Thanks for posting
Yeah, a great example of how much knowledge, research and tacit skill was lost, forgotten or deliberately downplayed ten to fifteen years ago.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
It's not enough to just punch through with enough light, if your sensor and optics bloom, flare and gets oversaturated.
That's why the tiny, tiny aperture of the drum scanner in that instance is a good idea.

PMTs in drums have a wider dyn. range, still non drum scanners have a good strategy to overcome CMOS limitations, this is Multi-Exposure, The Nikon improves from 3.18D to 4.0D with that, for example.

Usually the taking camera has way more flare than the scanner, and you always can easily clip out that flare, as it is a constant exposure just by trimming "levels" you get rid of any flare.


Somewhat ironically, considering everyone always mentioning slides limited DR, nothing beats a well exposed slide projected with a good projector in a darkened room, for range, colours and resolution..

Yes... while slides have a limited DR in the taking because medium is designed to take what can be projected, Velvia latitude is narrow at about 7 stops, but on a light table it can display more than 8000:1 static contrast, I guess, which is an insane mount.

Shooting nice slides requires an accurate metering, and good technique (with graded ND) if situation is challenging !


I believe it self-evident to anyone well versed in the art, that film is the vastly technically superior image recording medium/method.

Commercial and personal photography has migrated to digital for good reasons, but IMO it's true that analog has amazing strengths. Next week Star Wars 9 will be released, and this 2019 it was shot on film also for good resons, being a high budget production.


Nice reference !
 
Last edited:

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
PMTs in drums have a wider dyn. range, still non drum scanners have a good strategy to overcome CMOS limitations, this is Multi-Exposure, The Nikon improves from 3.18D to 4.0D with that, for example.

Usually the taking camera has way more flare than the scanner, and you always can easily clip out that flare, as it is a constant exposure just by trimming "levels" you get rid of any flare.
It’s not constant, like the film image is not constant.
One reason why film holders, esp. high quality ones like the Flextights are densely black and flogged to cut down extraneous light.
Sure you can do “something” in post, but completely fix it? No.
Nikons scanners are in many ways the epitome of the macro camera approach. But they where never cheap and I highly doubt they could pull all stops of range out of negative film. At least not in any files I’ve seen.
Again as I wrote earlier, it should be pretty easy to manufacture something at least as good as the Coolscans at a fraction of the original (or used) price today, if some bigger manufacturer should decide to but their weight behind it.

Yes... while slides have a limited DR in the taking because medium is designed to take what can be projected, Velvia latitude is narrow at about 7 stops, but on a light table it can display more than 8000:1 static contrast, I guess, which is an insane mount.

Shooting nice slides requires an accurate metering, and good technique (with graded ND) if situation is challenging !
You essentially have to do the equivalent of dodge and burn in camera.
The much maligned Cokin filters and holder is a good cheap entry to do that.

I once had the idea if it would be possible to make a transparent LCD screen filter, that with the image from a simple digital camera could create a mask over the film plane, that would allow slide to capture more detail in contrasty environments.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
It’s not constant, like the film image is not constant.

This is true, every row has a different flare depending on the densities we have in the illuminated transversal strip, but most of the times we can overcome well that in the edition. Anyway flare is low even in cheap scanners, as only a transversal strip is illuminated and not all image is producing flare. That flare would have an impact when reading densities beyond 3.0D and having clear film in the same illuminated strip.

With negative film we don't usually go to very high densities, so scanners have usually an easy job, anyway sometimes a drum is required, sure...
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,402
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
Quite interesting thread, and have always liked reading about non-released and prototype products.

It's strange that at the least two electron sensitization has not been applied to the TMAX range?
I stumbled upon the following page, where R Gould writes about two electron in a simplified way for a chem course. From reading it I get the impression the process currently works with dye formation, and thus, color film.
http://www.asu.edu/courses/chm233/notes/amines/aminesRL2/tes.html
"It takes 4 silver ions to make one dye molecule. However, for the exposed crystals, ALL of the silver ions in the crystal can get involved in making dye molecules."
 

KenS

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
942
Location
Lethbridge, S. Alberta ,
Format
Multi Format
I bet we'd have a good film scanner that cost less than $2000!

Just 'noticed' you post ...
I sold a 'specialised' Pentax Lens and 'invested' in an Epson 850 Pro to allow me to scan and 'slightly enlarge my 4x5 negs and print onto PIctorico 'OH film for printing the 'archaic' print processes... and it 'set me back' less than $1200 "Canuckian.
I am more than pleased with the 'quality'

Ken
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Just 'noticed' you post ...
I sold a 'specialised' Pentax Lens and 'invested' in an Epson 850 Pro to allow me to scan and 'slightly enlarge my 4x5 negs and print onto PIctorico 'OH film for printing the 'archaic' print processes... and it 'set me back' less than $1200 "Canuckian.
I am more than pleased with the 'quality'

Ken
For 135 and 120 I find the Epson flatbeds severely lacking for anything but small web postings.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
For 135 and 120 I find the Epson flatbeds severely lacking for anything but small web postings.

I guess this is not the right thread to debate that, but anyway IMO in scanning the most important thing is if operator/edition is skilled or not, more than the machine itself. There are people obtaining perfect result from a V700, they know how to do it. Instead some drum operators deliver files with banding.
 
Last edited:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,021
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
B&W sales dropped of quite a bit in the mid '80s IIRC, but in any case the B&W R&D effort was severely scaled back. Color was to some small extent as well due to overall cutbacks.

I am not sure where 2e sensitization is used currently among the Kodak product mix, but it is in use. And, it uses a heavy metal complexed with the dye.

PE
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
This is true, every row has a different flare depending on the densities we have in the illuminated transversal strip, but most of the times we can overcome well that in the edition. Anyway flare is low even in cheap scanners, as only a transversal strip is illuminated and not all image is producing flare. That flare would have an impact when reading densities beyond 3.0D and having clear film in the same illuminated strip.

With negative film we don't usually go to very high densities, so scanners have usually an easy job, anyway sometimes a drum is required, sure...
Well, this is a huge subject, so let me reply with a couple of links to threads that already discuss the issues:

Flare on Coolscans.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ccd-flare-with-nikon-coolscan-5000ed.188001/

Bullshit in spec sheets and virtues of camera scanning.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59950400

Keep scrolling down. There is plenty of meat on these. :smile:
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
I guess this is not the right thread to debate that, but anyway IMO in scanning the most important thing is if operator/edition is skilled or not, more than the machine itself. There are people obtaining perfect result from a V700, they know how to do it. Instead some drum operators deliver files with banding.
There are absolute limits to what kind of resolution you can extract from the scanner.
No amount of fiddling with holders, Newton ring free glass or liquids is going to change that.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom