http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=55564

TechPan anyone? PanX? Or 120 sized Kodachrome?
Steve

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, David Richardson wrote:

>
>  The return of Kodachrome would be great! Who would process it though? Has the Dr5 lab have any advice as to positive development for PanX?
>  I loved PanX, it had such smooth detail and a great 'tooth' as the retoucher say.
>

PanX was one of Dr. Wood's favorite films. I wouldn't be surprised if he had worked out the processing of it early in his career. There was a rumor that Kodak was still producing PanX for Polaroid for their Pos-Neg film.
The problem with Kodak is that they'll only deal with an existing "Kodak dealer". This means that photographers would have to approach Freestyle or B&H to place the order. Plus, either one rich photog would have to front the money or you would have to get enough people together. It would probably be easier for filmmakers (i.e. cine) to get their stuff made since they'd be ordering so much up front.
Steve

coronet3d wrote:

> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, David Richardson wrote:
> >
> > The return of Kodachrome would be great! Who would process it
> > though? Has the Dr5 lab have any advice as to positive development
> > for PanX? I loved PanX, it had such smooth detail and a great
> > 'tooth' as the retoucher say.
>
> PanX was one of Dr. Wood's favorite films. I wouldn't be surprised
> if he had worked out the processing of it early in his career.
> There was a rumor that Kodak was still producing PanX for Polaroid
> for their Pos-Neg film.

I've heard that rumor. According to the folks at New55 Film
<http://new55project.blogspot.com/>, Polaroid Type 55 used Kodak
SO139, not Panatomic X. The New55 packets will use a different
negative emulsion that is still in production.

> The problem with Kodak is that they'll only deal with an existing
> "Kodak dealer". This means that photographers would have to
> approach Freestyle or B&H to place the order. Plus, either one rich
> photog would have to front the money or you would have to get enough
> people together. It would probably be easier for filmmakers
> (i.e. cine) to get their stuff made since they'd be ordering so much
> up front.

For a couple of years now Keith Canham of Canham Cameras
<http://canhamcameras.com/> has been a dealer for Kodak special orders
of sheet film. He accepts individual orders for film, and when there
are enough to cover it he places an order with Kodak.

One of the problems with Kodak is that they insist on cutting each
master roll in only one size. That means that some sizes (like 8x10,
and some of the Ultra Large Format sizes) have had no trouble
completing orders, while others (5x7) haven't been able to complete
any orders.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

I'll cheerfully order a case of 120 Kodachrome 64 if someone out there can be persuaded to do the processing. I've always regretted not ever having the chance to shoot MF Kodachrome, I love the way that stuff looks in 35mm and even Viewmaster.

Jim Harp

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Brian Reynolds wrote:

> One of the problems with Kodak is that they insist on cutting each
> master roll in only one size. That means that some sizes (like 8x10,
> and some of the Ultra Large Format sizes) have had no trouble
> completing orders, while others (5x7) haven't been able to complete
> any orders.
>

The discussion I linked to was related to cine film. I would assume that it would be a pretty big sheet of film they'd have to coat in order to fulfil one of those orders. The plus for us is that we also like using film with a clear base. For instance, PlusX, if coated on a clear base would be better for slide shooters than most of the B&W product out there. The problem is piggybacking our request on top of a cine film request and then getting Kodak to cooperate. I'll agree that it's easier said that done.
Steve

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "jamesbharp" wrote:

>
> I'll cheerfully order a case of 120 Kodachrome 64 if someone out there can be persuaded to do the processing. I've always regretted not ever having the chance to shoot MF Kodachrome, I love the way that stuff looks in 35mm and even Viewmaster.
>

I think when she was talking about Kodachrome, she was probably referring to 16mm&8mm film, not even 35mm film, and she was probably thinking of Dwayne's as the sub-contractor. Dwayne's wouldn't process anything wider than 35mm film. Kodak would have to re-establish their 120 processing capability, and I'm not sure a spot buy of 120 sized Kodachrome would be enough for that kind of investment. However, there is a lab in the UK which is experimenting on how to process K14 for all of the freezer rolls out there. Perhaps they could do it? Keep hope alive!
Steve

Most modern films are coated with an anti-halation backing, such as the Kodak Remjet, which as the name implies is an opaque jet black.   This improves the image quality by preventing halation from light that is reflected back from the back side of the film.  It is removed during processing.

Coating an emulsion on a clear base would be very undesirable.  The image quality would be poor.

JR

On Apr 7, 2012 6:28 PM, "coronet3d" <coronet3d@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Brian Reynolds wrote:
> One of the problems with Kodak is that they insist on cutting each
> master roll in only one size. That means that some sizes (like 8x10,
> and some of the Ultra Large Format sizes) have had no trouble
> completing orders, while others (5x7) haven't been able to complete
> any orders.
>
The discussion I linked to was related to cine film. I would assume that it would be a pretty big sheet of film they'd have to coat in order to fulfil one of those orders. The plus for us is that we also like using film with a clear base. For instance, PlusX, if coated on a clear base would be better for slide shooters than most of the B&W product out there. The problem is piggybacking our request on top of a cine film request and then getting Kodak to cooperate. I'll agree that it's easier said that done.
Steve

As far as film width, this is a relatively minor consideration.  The 54 inch wide master roll can be slit in any widths as long as they go the entire length of the roll.  

Likewise for processing.   The transport rollers can be interchanged, and you can run 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and 120 simultaneously side-by-side on the same machine.   You can even  change rollers if you find that you are getting more rolls of one size than another.

JR

On Apr 7, 2012 6:32 PM, "coronet3d" <coronet3d@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "jamesbharp" wrote:
>
> I'll cheerfully order a case of 120 Kodachrome 64 if someone out there can be persuaded to do the processing. I've always regretted not ever having the chance to shoot MF Kodachrome, I love the way that stuff looks in 35mm and even Viewmaster.
>
I think when she was talking about Kodachrome, she was probably referring to 16mm&8mm film, not even 35mm film, and she was probably thinking of Dwayne's as the sub-contractor. Dwayne's wouldn't process anything wider than 35mm film. Kodak would have to re-establish their 120 processing capability, and I'm not sure a spot buy of 120 sized Kodachrome would be enough for that kind of investment. However, there is a lab in the UK which is experimenting on how to process K14 for all of the freezer rolls out there. Perhaps they could do it? Keep hope alive!
Steve

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, JR wrote:

> Coating an emulsion on a clear base would be very undesirable. The image
> quality would be poor.

Sorry to disagree, but TechPan, PanX, Scala and Maco's TP64 (Efke 50 on a clear base) all used a clear base as do cine films. Lower Dmin means better contrast and a brighter image. In my opinion a clear base is better for images viewed in a viewer or as projected slides. I'll agree that I wouldn't want a clear base for use in an enlarger where high contrast works against you.
I'm all for a anti-halation backing but to my knowledge the only film that was still using it was Kodachrome. The other issue is removing the backing which is usually done in a cine machine. I don't think many E6 labs or dr5 are set up to scrub off a backing prior to processing.
Sincerely,
Steve

Sorry to disagree, but antihalation results in better contrast and therefore the visual impression of a brighter image, since your d-max is not washed out by the back reflections.  

Roll film, whether still or cine, is normally processed in continuous processors, while individual sheets are usually processed in so-called dip-and-dunk machines.   There were adapters made for the latter that had a weighted roller and clips to handle individual rolls for small volume use, but these were less common.   Scrubbers were used for both cine and still films in the continuous machines.

JR

On Apr 8, 2012 9:57 AM, "coronet3d" <coronet3d@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, JR wrote:
> Coating an emulsion on a clear base would be very undesirable. The image
> quality would be poor.
Sorry to disagree, but TechPan, PanX, Scala and Maco's TP64 (Efke 50 on a clear base) all used a clear base as do cine films. Lower Dmin means better contrast and a brighter image. In my opinion a clear base is better for images viewed in a viewer or as projected slides. I'll agree that I wouldn't want a clear base for use in an enlarger where high contrast works against you.
I'm all for a anti-halation backing but to my knowledge the only film that was still using it was Kodachrome. The other issue is removing the backing which is usually done in a cine machine. I don't think many E6 labs or dr5 are set up to scrub off a backing prior to processing.
Sincerely,
Steve

JR,
Did the Super 8 Plus X have an anti-halation layer?
Thanks,
Steve

In general, b & w films did not, because they had a sufficiently long straight line portion of the H & D curve to be able to drive the image past the point of halation flare without losing any image detail when "printed".   This is the case whether printed to paper, to another transparency stock, or reversal processed as a transparency.   

Color film emulsions had to be "balanced" to each other on the same stock.  That meant that the available straight line portion was much shorter, and limited to the shortest of each layer on each end of the sensitivity range.   That is, the distance between D-min and D-max, before you ran into blooming of the highlights or crushing of the blacks.   Remember, the "specs" for color film are based on the "worst case" of all three emulsions, since the other emulsions cannot exceed the specs of the most sensitive (highest speed) one.   Each of the three emulsions, from top to bottom, has to be progressively more sensitive, since they have to "look through" the layer(s) above.   One of the reasons that color films tend to appear to be "grainier" than b &w emulsions of the same speed, is that the "speed" of a color film is the speed of the top "slowest" layer.  The underlying layers are progressively "faster" (more sensitive), and therefore appear to have more grain.  

Therefore, you could adjust the printing of monochrome emulsions to move it far enough up-scale to avoid the revealing of halation artifacts, which is not the case with color stock, especially reversal color films where you or the lab did not have much if any control of the printout from the negative (yes even reversal transparency films, including Kodachrome, have a negative).  That negative image (on each layer) is just removed (bleached out) during processing.  This bleaching only affects the silver halide negative(s) which are part of the emulsion.  The carbon-based antihalation layer on the back must be removed by dissolving the water soluble adhesive and then physically scrubbing it off with special scrubber rollers.  

For more information on antihalation layers, you might want to look at: 

http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-91556.html

especially the last few comments (some of the earlier few are by people asking questions; most of the real answers come later).   If anyone is really interested in the whole story, Kodak covers it extensively in a variety of publications, mostly in print.   A few of these have been scanned, and can be googled (now lower case since the word has become generic).

JR
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:50 PM, coronet3d <coronet3d@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

JR,
Did the Super 8 Plus X have an anti-halation layer?
Thanks,
Steve

--