Why does Kodak not make a triple layer b&w film?

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Compare these two cross-sections. 5219 vs Tri-X. The twelve layers in 5219 are about 40 microns high. The two layers in Tri-X are 12 microns high. There is easily room for one more layer in Tri-X, and technically you could fit seven layers and still be within 40 microns.

The reason why I'm suggesting a third layer for Tri-X is to increase DR. I bet that if you fit just one more layer in any b&w film, the DR will be industry leading.

Images are from Making Kodak Film by Robert L. Shanebrook, 2010.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

There are only two B&W Kodak stocks avail currently for motion picture use, 5222 Double-X in 35mm and 7266 Tri-X Reversal in 16mm.

It costs an incredible amount of money to develop new stocks, so I doubt Kodak will be doing that anymore. Certainly not for B&W motion picture camera stock, which is not exactly a big seller these days. It would be easier for them to cut down and perforate T-Max or other existing stills stocks than it would be to make a new version of Tri-X. 

If you’re talking about stills film, then there are a lot of other options available. My preference is for Fuji Acros and Ilford Delta 3200, but I still have tons of Tri-X 400 120 in my film freezer.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Satsuki Murashige
Changed 7222 to 5222.

[Frank Wylie]

If you really want a unique look, shoot some 2366/7366 Intermediate Finegrain Stock and process it as a negative.  Of course it has the equivalent ISO/ASA sensitivity of about 6 to 12, depending on your developer/gamma combo, but it's ortho and (duh) very fine grained.  

It's certainly high-noon or thereabouts film stock, but the look is quite interesting.

I think a 2K foot 35mm roll is about $500 US now....

Oh, and if you are ambitious, you can develop it yourself under a OC Yellow Safelight...

(cue derision and hoots)

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Frank Wylie

[Philip Forrest]

TMax 100 in 16mm would blow everything else out of the water for black and white motion picture films. With today's scanning technology, the results would be astoundingly perfect, great dynamic range and essentially grain free. Fun food for thought, but that's all it is for now. One way to reduce grain on 7266 would be to have it developed as negative, in a soup like Diafine but then you're looking at hand developing lengths of 100ft at a time, since that is typically a very small batch developer. 

Phil Forrest

[Frank Wylie]

Heck, go crazy and process it in XTOL (replenished, it can be done) in a normal processor OR build a hand rack like in the Silent Era.

All fun thoughts with about ZERO possibilities of happening;  at least on my part.

But, it's fun to speculate...

[Philip Forrest]

These days it would just about affordable to buy (or receive for free) a 35mm minilab like an Agfa DLab, reprogram the transport times and temperatures and develop in whatever one wants. Back around 2011, there were photo shops all over the USA unloading their machines for free. To some extent, this is still the case, and you can still get a minilab for the cost of a truck rental, a couple pizzas (for the 2 friends needed to move the thing safely) and fuel, with a little shopping around. 

Phil Forrest

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Karim...write to the film companies to suggest it. If you don't, nothing will happen. If you do, nothing may happen. But at least you know you tried. 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

On 5/12/2021 at 3:08 AM, Satsuki Murashige said:

It costs an incredible amount of money to develop new stocks,

True. But adding a third layer?

On 5/12/2021 at 3:18 AM, Frank Wylie said:

If you really want a unique look,

Actually that's not really what I was thinking about. I was just thinking about adding at least two more stops of DR. Having said that, I don't like dull imagery either, whether b&w or colour.

On 5/12/2021 at 3:22 AM, Philip Forrest said:

TMax 100 in 16mm would blow everything else out of the water for black and white motion picture films. With today's scanning technology, the results would be astoundingly perfect, great dynamic range and essentially grain free.

I often wonder why they don't actually release T-Max for motion picture use. That's a good point there.

57 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Karim...write to the film companies to suggest it. If you don't, nothing will happen. If you do, nothing may happen. But at least you know you tried. 

I did mention it to Kodak once. I'll mention it again.

[Doug Palmer]

4 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

True. But adding a third layer?

Actually that's not really what I was thinking about. I was just thinking about adding at least two more stops of DR. Having said that, I don't like dull imagery either, whether b&w or colour.

I often wonder why they don't actually release T-Max for motion picture use. That's a good point there.

I did mention it to Kodak once. I'll mention it again.

Has anyone tried T-max 35mm still stock (100ft) in a movie camera ?  There's certainly a need and therefore a market for a high resolution b&w movie film, particularly in 16mm. I wonder too if gigabit film is made anywhere these days. Or something similar.

[Aapo Lettinen]

13 minutes ago, Doug Palmer said:

Has anyone tried T-max 35mm still stock (100ft) in a movie camera ?  There's certainly a need and therefore a market for a high resolution b&w movie film, particularly in 16mm. I wonder too if gigabit film is made anywhere these days. Or something similar.

T-max has been too expensive for me to try but I have shot for example Fomapan 400, the Orwo UN54, Rollei Superpan200, Agfa APX400, Ilford HP5 and Agfa ST9 with my Konvas.

The ST9 is very interesting looking and very high resolution. it is about 12 ISO but perfect for shooting in the Summer when you would be between T11 and T22 with 100 ISO stock all the time  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFLUux-W6og

[Aapo Lettinen]

of the 35mm stills stocks I have tested I would recommend the Ilford HP5, the Orwo UN54 and the Agfa ST9 for movie use. If one wants a older style grainier look then the Fomapan 400 or the APX400 and quite excellent. The Superpan200 is interesting but not enough so to justify shooting a movie on it I think.

PS.  Kodak b/w motion stocks are decades old outdated technology which is blown out of the water by modern b/w stocks. The look of the Kodak stocks is interesting but if one wants less grain and more resolution, almost all the alternatives are technically better and most of the alternatives are cheaper as well. If the camera can handle KS perfs and shorter rolls are OK then there is no much need to limit yourself to only Kodak stocks.  Especially if comparing the TMAX to the b/w stock I mentioned... one can get 4 or 5 rolls of Fomapan400 at the price of one Tmax roll and even the "expensive" Ilford stock is almost 3 times cheaper than the Tmax

[Aapo Lettinen]

5 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

True. But adding a third layer?

that is the same than developing a completely new stock. One needs to redesign all the coating process and so on

[Frank Wylie]

8 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Actually that's not really what I was thinking about. I was just thinking about adding at least two more stops of DR. Having said that, I don't like dull imagery either, whether b&w or colour.

 

Point taken about the third layer, but spectacular Silent Films with amazing dynamic range did not need a third layer and the emulsions on lab stocks are very close to camera original emulsions of the Silent Era. 

 

[Simon Wyss]

Still have negatives on Gigabitfilm 40 somewhere that someone had shot for me with an Arriflex 35 BL II and middle-aged Zeiss primes. I remember having struck step contacts on ORWO PF 2, developed, and screened them. Stunning. Gigabitfilm was a film having a single thin panchromatic layer. If a black-and-white stock should have a bright future, it would need to be something the like. Positive stocks should go in the direction of sound recording film, also one layer with a very tight grain structure and max. density above log 4. That would provide a density range of twelve stops on the print. Maybe nine stops could be measured from the screen.

[Frank Wylie]

I actually prefer the ORWO PF2 to Kodak 2302 for release printing from a good negative.  It has a better "snap" to the image, but 2302 is good for very contrasty images that need to be tamed a bit...