Gigabitfilm

[Simon Wyss]

Has anybody made experience with Gigabitfilm, be it the first one which has 40 ISO, be it the new Gigabitfilm HDR 32 ?

[Tassanee Duca]

Has anybody made experience with Gigabitfilm, be it the first one which has 40 ISO, be it the new Gigabitfilm HDR 32 ?

 

Yes,

I have used in past the Gigabitfilm 40 Iso, now I'd like to use the new emulsion Gigabitfilm GTP 32 ISO, but where I can buy it?

[Simon Wyss]

At Gigabitfilm of Germany, www.gigabitfilm.de

[Richard Tuohy]

At Gigabitfilm of Germany, www.gigabitfilm.de

 

I take it that there is no 16mm 'gigabit' film?

richard

[Simon Wyss]

Yes, there is Gigabitfilm 40 in 16 mm, perforated 0.3" along one edge, overall dry thickness 0.068 mm. There is no signature on the film whatsoever.

 

You can have 100, 200, 400 and 800 ft. portions. 100' cost CHF 59 (some 76 AUD / 51 USD / 40 EUR), 200' the double, and so on. Unfortunately, I cannot process at the moment. If you want to develop yourself, you can purchase the chemistry from Mr. Ludwig of Gigabitfilm.

[Tassanee Duca]

Yes, I think that the Gigabitfilm 16mm is the better film b/n in the world for this cinematographic format... Also I have shot some reel of this film, the images quality is extraordinary.

I hope that mr. Wyss come back soon to develop this film :rolleyes:

[Chris Burke]

Yes, there is Gigabitfilm 40 in 16 mm, perforated 0.3" along one edge, overall dry thickness 0.068 mm. There is no signature on the film whatsoever.

 

You can have 100, 200, 400 and 800 ft. portions. 100' cost CHF 59 (some 76 AUD / 51 USD / 40 EUR), 200' the double, and so on. Unfortunately, I cannot process at the moment. If you want to develop yourself, you can purchase the chemistry from Mr. Ludwig of Gigabitfilm.

 

 

 

 

ARe there any examples of the cine film that you could post? 51 cents per foot is very expensive for Black And White film. What would be the benefit of using this film over 7222. 7231, 7265 or 7266 or the 35mm stock? Like I said, the price is very high, almost double what we pay here in the US

[Simon Wyss]

I'll be in with stills as soon as i get to it.

 

Gigabitfilm excels by its extremely fine granulation. The film has double resolving power of what the best lenses project. The image's character is no longer given by the film but by the lens. The impression is that of a glaze. I want to say the film is like a mirror. Slightly out of focus is no longer news style but brutally unsharp. When I made my first print on Eastman 7203 I thought there is something wrong with that grain . . . until I realised it's the positive grain. So, comparing a traditional film to Gigabitfilm is like a comparison between silk and sandpaper.

[K Borowski]

I'll be in with stills as soon as i get to it.

 

Gigabitfilm excels by its extremely fine granulation. The film has double resolving power of what the best lenses project. The image's character is no longer given by the film but by the lens. The impression is that of a glaze. I want to say the film is like a mirror. Slightly out of focus is no longer news style but brutally unsharp. When I made my first print on Eastman 7203 I thought there is something wrong with that grain . . . until I realised it's the positive grain. So, comparing a traditional film to Gigabitfilm is like a comparison between silk and sandpaper.

 

The one problem I have with your statement is your claim that the lens is the limiting factor.

 

System resolution is not additive or subtractive, it is an inverse, or geometric I believe is the proper mathematical term, system.

 

So you add all of the inverses of resolving powers of individual components together, and then reinvert to get system resolution. You don't say that because you have a film that can resolve 200 lp/mm and a lens that can resolve only 100, that the film resolves 100 lp/mm more than the lens. Again, that isn't the way system resolution works. It'd be 1/100 + 1/200 = 3/200.

 

Inverting that, 200/3 = ~67 lp/mm system resolution.

 

So you could just as easily argue that you're wasting a lot of the resolution in the film unless you're contact printing, or using it for its intended purpose: micro-filming, which uses a much more loss-less process to record the image on film, microscopy and/or laser imaged small aperture film recorder.

 

Keep in mind too, that you'll never get 200 lp/mm resolution, even contact printing with average contrast.

 

The ceiling on 1.6:1 contrast that is the average contrast you encounter in the real world is something like 63 lp/mm, so most films can resolve this handily.

 

Finally, comparing a re-tooled microfilm to 55-year-old Kodak B&W stocks, essentially unchanged since the "Twilight Zone" era, is hardly a fair comparison. How about comparing this film's spec sheet to that of T-Max 100 or Pan F + 50? Better yet, compare it to 5201 or Fuji 64D desaturated digitally or processed in B&W chemistry.

[K Borowski]

Slightly out of focus is no longer news style but brutally unsharp.

 

And huh?

 

I think this is a case of an idiom that is lost in translation. Would you mind re-wording it?

[Simon Wyss]

What is unfair with the comparison? Orwo UN 54 is a ISO 100 stock that looks about the same as Eastman PXN. We made that effort of opening a new way precisely out of the blunt NO from film manufacturers to review their black-and-white products.

 

The calculation goes straight ahead. A fine lens may bring 400 lp/mm. Gigabitfilm shows detail up to 720 lp/mm at 1:1000 and about half of that at 1:1.6 which is not average contrast in the real world. At least I don't live in such a dull world but like a 1:4 to 1:8 contrast ratio (two to three times difference in light density). The overall resolution is only determined by the weakest link in the chain. That defines the image character. Example: Google Maps. While the image is being built up you see pixel clusters. As soon as pixel resolution exceeds our vision's resolution we don't see them any longer. One resolving power becomes replaced by the next.

 

Cinema has a lot to do with waste. Here, too, an example: 1000 Watt arc lamp in the projector, some 20,000 lumen leave the arc. Measurement shows that 5 percent, 1000 lumen, reach a screen of 12 by 16 feet: 56 lux. We loose 95 percent. Or take development. Instead of trying to bring the necessary amount of ions onto a given film surface we send it through hundreds of liters of bath with several hundred times more chemicals dissolved in them. Polaroid was closer to an ecological gain in this point.

 

Back to microfilms in cinematography. They are a valuable alternative. Were today's common black-and-white stocks as pimped up as the colour films are the situation would look a bit different. Obama was elected because he is younger than John MacCain and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. It's been a blow to an elder generation. So the beloved Eastman-Kodak and Ilford and Orwo and Fuji (yes, they have black-and-white cine stocks) get under pressure by a younger product line. To be frank, something like Gigabitfilm could already have happened in the 1960s when those thin-layer films came into trade. It took a chemist like Mr. Ludwig to think things over. To be fair, you pay the price for an invisible granulation. ISO 40 is the maximum developable out of the layer.

 

Pictures slightly out of focus do no longer look like news footage, I meant to say, where you sometimes encounter a little blur due to not carefully set lenses. A classic emulsion would disguise some loss of fine detail. Gigabitfilm reveals how bokeh runs. It's difficult to describe it in words. Please ask me again for a picture file in December, I'll try to upload a section out of a 16-mm film frame. My situation is somewhat untidy today.

[Tassanee Duca]

Karl,

Your analysis is not exact. The very big resolution of the Gigabitfilm takes advantage of to the maximum the lens optical quality, the grain does not exist and the images have a look grain-free that the traditional films b/n do not have.

 

Moreover the highest latitude (than e' of 10 stop with new GTP) allows to capture details in the high lights and the shadows very dark. You know other film b/n that have 10 stop of latitude ? I believe not? Another point in favor of the Gigabitfilm is its support in polyester, than with the exception of the triacetate is not degraded in the time because of the acetic syndrome, but remains unchanged for hundred and hundred of years?

 

Your images will be recorded in the best ways and will resist more a long in the time on the Gigabitfilm. I have used Kodak Plus X, Ilford Fp4 and Foma in the format cine 16mm and then I have tried the Gigabitfilm.

I have seen the difference, till when I not will find an better film of the Gigabitfilm I do not have no intention to change B) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[K Borowski]

Actually, this isn't contention, it is proven Physics. . .

 

http://www.diax.nl/pages/Lens_res_uk.html

 

 

So blame the lens or blame the film, but in reality your only recourse is to blame the system ;-)

[Tassanee Duca]

Actually, this isn't contention, it is proven Physics. . .

 

http://www.diax.nl/pages/Lens_res_uk.html

 

 

So blame the lens or blame the film, but in reality your only recourse is to blame the system ;-)

 

Limits of the test:

1) to use T-Max 100 and Velvia is not the maximum, with the Gigabitfilm the resolutions would be greater (the Zeiss use microfilm like the Gigabitfilm for the tests of its lenses):

2) In the test it is spoken about two optical zoom: you make the test with a fixed lens as the Zeiss Planar 50 T 50 mm f/1,4 and you see the difference... ;)

[K Borowski]

Limits of the test:

1) to use T-Max 100 and Velvia is not the maximum, with the Gigabitfilm the resolutions would be greater (the Zeiss use microfilm like the Gigabitfilm for the tests of its lenses):

2) In the test it is spoken about two optical zoom: you make the test with a fixed lens as the Zeiss Planar 50 T 50 mm f/1,4 and you see the difference... ;)

 

 

Uh-huh. They used T-Max 100. Gigabitfilm would be higher, but certainly not that much higher. The only way you'd get the resolutions you and Simon are talking about, Tassanee, would be if you were using Gigabit film for it's intended purpose: microfilming.

 

OK, let's say, hypothetically, that you're getting the maximum contrast resolution of Gigabit film, 720 lp/mm. At an *optimal* aperture of F/5.6 (wide open you'd get only 80% of this), the Zeiss is said to resolve at 320 lp/mm.

 

So here is how the *system* works:

 

1/320 + 1/720 = 13/3600

 

3600/13 = 275 lp/mm resolving power.

 

Hell, even if you have a lens that *matches* the resolution of the film, you'd still only get:

 

1/720 + 1/720 = 1/360 = 360 lp/mm

 

Now again, I am not saying that these figures aren't unimpressive. They're far better than anything Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, or ORWO have.

 

But, ultimately, the reason why all of these companies offer products essentially unchanged in at least two decades is because B&W is a very niche market in filmmaking. With the exception of maybe one big-budget movie per decade now, it's been relegated to student/fine-art/experimental filmmakers.

 

These markets have neither the need nor the inclination for high-resolution. In fact, perhaps the opposite because they often use B&W film because they *want* a '50s look.

 

If you folks want to be fair, you'd best run your resolution test against V2 50D 5201 or Fuji 64D desaturated digitally. Even here, filmmakers just don't care that much about resolution anymore, because look at how they scan them and output at 2K (3MP).

 

B&W is just far less popular for filmmakers than it is for still photographers. I personally wish this weren't the case. I usually spend every 4th of July and New Year's eve watching the "Twilight Zone" Marathon, and wish there were a modern show that had the guts to shoot entirely in B&W. But I just don't know if the audience is there for that sort of thing anymore.

 

I still remember the criticism I got when I was trying to sell cast pictures for $5 in H.S.

 

"Karl, your picture is really nice, but I have the same thing. . . in color".

[Guest Glen Alexander]

B&W is just far less popular for filmmakers than it is for still photographers. I personally wish this weren't the case. I usually spend every 4th of July and New Year's eve watching the "Twilight Zone" Marathon, and wish there were a modern show that had the guts to shoot entirely in B&W. But I just don't know if the audience is there for that sort of thing anymore.

 

I still remember the criticism I got when I was trying to sell cast pictures for $5 in H.S.

 

"Karl, your picture is really nice, but I have the same thing. . . in color".

 

submitted for your approval...

 

ha, ha, yes i'm off topic again, when i watched TV, i used to do the same thing until I bought the DVD's. years 1,2, and 3 were fantasic, last two were ok but story content was getting tired with Serling rehashing some previous stories, still a couple of gems in year 4 and 5. Eye of the Beholder is absolutely fantastic, damn near perfect match of story, lighting, cast, cinematography.

 

i shot my film on some specialized b&w for artistic and actually technical reasons, it has much better resolution and spectral response than anything by kodak. it is the only film that complements the story.

 

"... meet Mr. Bonham, apparently in complete control of The Twilight Zone"

[K Borowski]

submitted for your approval...

 

ha, ha, yes i'm off topic again, when i watched TV, i used to do the same thing until I bought the DVD's. years 1,2, and 3 were fantasic, last two were ok but story content was getting tired with Serling rehashing some previous stories, still a couple of gems in year 4 and 5. Eye of the Beholder is absolutely fantastic, damn near perfect match of story, lighting, cast, cinematography.

 

i shot my film on some specialized b&w for artistic and actually technical reasons, it has much better resolution and spectral response than anything by kodak. it is the only film that complements the story.

 

"... meet Mr. Bonham, apparently in complete control of The Twilight Zone"

 

Glen, why not just put this in a new thread? Or don't you believe in starting them?

 

I always thought that one about that girl with her face in the gauze was really bad cinematographically. They always had the damned faces of all the actors missing the way they photographed it. Even where the doctor walks across the screen someone else is in the way. Grr. . . It's almost like they did it on purpose. How'd that one end? ;)

[Simon Wyss]

Black and white is always right. Everybody can expose the film they like to, russian Polypan F which is made after an Ilford formula, Orwo P 100, Bergger 200 and 400 from France, sticky Efke (non-hardened back gelatine), sound negative stocks, plain positive, infrared emulsions, you know, Tri-X in 70 mm. I team with Gigabitfilm, Ltd, to offer something new and non-standard. Colour cinematography is controlled by the Rochester joint. Nothing besides it except Ilfochrome.

 

Black-and-white films can be freely combined. You may want to capture scenes on Fuji Neopan at 1600 ISO or on Kodak T-MAX P 3200 pushed to 10,000 and have them copied on Gigabitfilm. That works if you have little light in projection. Gigabitfilm has a thin layer with not so much silver so that a lighter positive comes out (less density in the shadows).

 

I think we better leave out the calculations. It's typical for the time of now: figures, numbers, abstracts, computed data. Mr. Ludwig's and my wish is that curiosity and open-mindedness leads to test it. For operators and DoPs who fear a stomachache of polyester-base stock in the camera: We had Gigabitfilm run through Arriflex 35 BL II, Bell & Howell Eyemo, Bolex-Paillard H 16, our step printers ( ! ) and of course projectors without problems. If our company will become operative in the U. S. A. we shall have all Gigabitfilm products in the fridge, promised.

[Charles MacDonald]

1/720 + 1/720 = 1/360 = 360 lp/mm

 

Now again, I am not saying that these figures aren't unimpressive. They're far better than anything Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, or ORWO have.

 

KOdak and Fuji both make a Microfilm stock, Gevert "used" to make one. The Kodak is called "Imagelink" and the AG one is "COPEX" I think Fuji just calls their "HR Microfilm" I would not be surprised if Foma did not have an equivelent in their home market. The trick to use any of them for Pictorial Photography rests in the use of Special development - and their are a bunch of formulas out there as the subject has been exlored for years by the folks who use Subminature Still Cameras and are trying to make a great 8X10 out of a 9mm wide negative (in the case of the Minox Camera) (do a google search for "Copex POTA" to see what I mean)

 

In "normal" development you would almost get a "Litho" effect from Microfilm (which actually might be an interesting effect in trying to do a horror movie, or a dream sequence.

[Simon Wyss]

Gigabitfilm 40 is a derivative of Agfa Copex Pan Rapid in conjunction with Ludwig's special chemistry. Gigabitfilm 32 HDR is a totally different make with a freshly developed formula. Here the chemistry became developed, not the film, haha. Foma Bohemia did have microfilms but that business has run out.

 

Minox film is 9.5 mm wide.

 

Thanks to everyone for noting.

[Tassanee Duca]

^{Development and fix of new GIGABITFILM GTP}

 

^{Mr. Wyss, I have found on of the Gigabitfilm website the datasheet of the GTP, written in German :wub: :wub: . I'd like to know if the following information about the development and the fixing are exact:}

^{1) DEVELOPMENT x an gamma 0,55: 24°C 11 minutes with (1+15) on 250 ml water 17 ml chemistry and/or on 350 ml water 23 ml chemistry. It is exact?}

^{2) FIXING: on the datasheet is written: "Für 4 Filme reichen 16 ml Fixierbadkonzentrat (Superfix Plus, Ilford Hypam, Rollei RXA) bzw 24 ml Agfa-Agefix auf 250 ml Wasser (für 266 bzw. 274 ml Fixierer), als Fixierzeit gelten bei dieser Verdünnung 3 Minuten."}

 

^{I would want to use Agfa Agefix, therefore,}

^{24 ml of concentrated fix diluted in 250 ml of water (tot. 274 ml fix bath) is ok in order to fix only 1 film 35mm 36 exp?}

 

^{3) To this dilution is ok an fix time of 3 minutes?}

Td

[Simon Wyss]

Sì, tutto appunto, everything is correct. Fixing time can be one minute when you agitate continuously. Good luck !

Edited November 29, 2008 by Simon Wyss

[Dan Goulder]

Gigabitfilm 40 is a derivative of Agfa Copex Pan Rapid in conjunction with Ludwig's special chemistry. Gigabitfilm 32 HDR is a totally different make with a freshly developed formula. Here the chemistry became developed, not the film, haha. Foma Bohemia did have microfilms but that business has run out.

 

Minox film is 9.5 mm wide.

 

Thanks to everyone for noting.

Is Gigabitfilm currently available in 35mm 400' lengths? If so, is there a U.S. distributor that stocks it, or how does one go about securing a roll to try out?

Thanks.

[Simon Wyss]

I have contacted Mr. Ludwig of Gigabitfilm, Ltd. If you don't mind would you please try to ask him, too. It's not my business how he wants to expand although we were the first lab to process a roll of Gigabitfilm. I don't have any HDR 32 on stock, only some 40 type in 35 and in 16.

 

http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/menu.htm

[Tassanee Duca]

Sì, tutto appunto, everything is correct. Fixing time can be one minute when you agitate continuously. Good luck !

Thanks.

For the agitation of my development tank I make the same for all treatment: During the first 30 sec., only 1 movement of overturn (turn upside down) of the tank every 5 second (6 times during the first 30 sec.)

After these first 30 sec. is enough 1 movement (overturn) every 30 second.

 

Therefore, 3 min. for the fix with this agitation is ok?

 

Td