In what sense (if any) is Kodak Eastman Double-X visually distinct from Kodak VISION3 stocks with the saturation removed?

[Owen A. Davies]

As I understand, there is a difference in texture and quality of the film's granularity. Additionally, there is the dynamic range. Speaking broadly, Kodak VISION3 stocks have about fifteen stocks of dynamic range. Being the same stock used since 1959, Eastman Double-X does not have nearly the same range. I have been told of 7222's dynamic range being as low as nine and as high as twelve; I am not certain. I have heard there is some difference in either the design or the mechanism of the silver halides in monochrome film but I haven't the technical understanding to really grasp what that means in respect to the final image. What I would like to hear from someone a bit more knowledgable on Kodak film than me is how do these two lines of film differ besides their granularity and dynamic range? If i were to remove the saturation to something shot on VISION3 in post, would there really be a tangible difference in the image to something shot on Eastman Double-X

Edited September 9, 2025 by Owen A. Davies
Clarification

[Tyler Purcell]

When Double X and Tri-X were less money than negative, it made sense to shoot black and white in order to save money.  Now that Kodak basically charges the same for black and white as color, there really isn't any benefit. 

Converting color to black and white, isn't desaturating, it's also choosing the right color to enhance. Black and white film is very sensitive in the blue wavelengths rather than red. This is different than color negative, where the green layer is the most sensitive. So in post, you need to do a few tricks in order to mimic that look by enhancing the blue saturation a bit. 

I have converted color to black and white for years, several films were made this way because 500T is just such a versatile stock, it's hard to be stuck at lower ISO's with double-x when 500T actually has a better grain structure for a more "classic" old school look. I would practice on 35mm still film, using the techniques in Photoshop first. Then once you understand what you're after, you can just mimic that in Resolve, maybe even build your own lut. 

 

[Brian Drysdale]

A basic (lighthearted) tutorial with Lightworks shows how you can play with the colour settings to adjust the B & W image. 

 

[David Mullen ASC]

A color image consists of dye clouds after the silver is removed in the bleach step — silver grains are sharper-edged. But the silver grains are larger in Double-X than the dye clouds in 500T Vision3.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

In still photography, when having large prints (e.g. 90cm*60cm aka 3feet*2feet) side by side hanging in gallery, a large majority of people would notice the subtle differences. But in motion pictures, where the spectators would concentrate on the story rather than on the film stock? I doubt that anyone would notice, especially when the final result gets projected digitally.

The desaturated Vision3 would free you from the need to use all those „B&W only filters“ as you would have the full color information in your digital intermediate. And simulating the effects of different B&W developers will be just a click of the mouse. Etc..

So there are basically only two pitfalls:

1) recorded wavelengths: some B&W filmstocks are able to see more than the Vision3 (infrared or ultraviolet spectrum). The Double-X can „see less“ than Vision3.

2) „ditch“ post processing: With all those effects available in your editing software, it’s very easy to „overdo“ the conversion to B&W and to end up with „strange“ results. E.g. something like the yellow cabs in an otherwise B&W image:

https://de.pinterest.com/pin/197876977364793922/

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Double-X does not start at 375nm (also note the different log sensitivity that will also result in subtle differences):

Edited September 12, 2025 by Joerg Polzfusz