200ft Hey Andy! That would take me a while to get through! Are you able to break it up easily? I am very curious but was thinking maybe a couple of rolls first! I might put a note in the Aussie section to see if anyone is interested. I did notice that Athril bought some earlier in the year - I wonder if he would be up for it again.
Now, as we mention the ORWO products, how do they compare?
Hoffy, I can't comment on how it compares to ORWO as have not used Double X. I do have ORWO UN54 which I could send you a couple of 135-36 rolls.
Originally Posted by hoffy
I have been interested in trying the Double X but was not wanting another 400ft to use on my own (same for Orwo N74). 200ft I'd get through with all of my reversal testing I do.
I can spool off the 400' into 100' lengths without to much trouble and I would bag and can it as well before sending over.
Spooling down from a big roll is a wrist killer. Your forearms will be aching. I used to spool the cassettes in the bathroom on a stool at night. my arms outstretched to both sides is perfect for 36 exposures plus leader. Tape was already applied to spools which were stuck on a rail, which the film was then applied and rerolled in with the help of long blunt tweezers which helped reroll them in very quickly. its funny how adept you can get quickly after just a few rolls, my scissor cuts became perfectly straight, and my taping to the little bit of leader from discarded cassettes became perfectly aligned (which I checked after when developing).
Its a bit to hot to do that now since i dont have central air, but thats a good way to do it if you dont have a bulk loader.
I can't imagine spooling down 400' like that.
I have a large platten and small platten which fit on a film winder, so I wind from large to small and when small is full, I cut. Works for both 35mm and 16mm. The 100ft lengths of 35mm I put into a bulk loader and fill cassettes normally. I take care not to generate any static when spooling down.
MP film stock is a bit thicker than still film stock for obvious reasons. Getting a 36 exposure roll is a bit of a struggle with some brands of cassettes. One nice thing about 5222 is that it dries completely flat -- absolutely no curl. This is an advantage when enlarging.
Thanks Glenn! These are the best examples of this film that I have seen. You seem to have little trouble getting images with great contrast from this film. Are you doing anything special in that regard?
Looks like EI 250 in Microdol 1+1 is the winner... love the Naples gallery!
The lower contrast of cine films is an advantage in some ways. One may increase the development time to bring the contrast up to normal still film level. With the additional development there is often a small increase in film speed. I develop so the contrast a little lower than normal still values. I target for optimal printing on grade 3 paper. The lower contrast agrees well with my scanner and helps minimize blown highlights in scans.
Originally Posted by mhanc
The developers that work well with Tri-X will work well with Double-X. It just requires some experimentation to get to the contrast you want for printing with an EI that retains good shadow detail. HC-110 dil. H and Microdol 1+3 work well for wide brightness ranges. These very dilute developers inhibit blown highlights very well, but the grain is more evident, especially in scans. Microdol 1+1 is a good compromise. It softens the grain just a little, produces a nice mid-tone range, and still controls the highlights well. This film/developer combination works well for the street shooting I like to do.
I ordered a 400 ft roll from kodak for the first time the other day and just developed my first roll today. I used Adox MQ Borax as suggested by the rff thread (similar to d76 but with a bit more snap) and developed it for 7+ minutes at EI250. I can confirm a couple of things:
Thicker Film Base (but you can still rip through the sprocket holes)
No edge numbers but there is a barcode
Mine had a pinkish cast. I originally fixed with TF-4, then washed, noticed the color had not diminished, so refixed in a new standard rapid fix and rewashed. Still a tinge of pink there.
Here is the long rff post that has a lot of nice observations about this film and the Orwo films:
Here is the site that developed from that (very nice spread sheet for developers and times and other things)
Here is a test shot that has sky and some trees in the background. What I notice is that the sky shows a pleasant grain and that I see more details in the trees than I normally do with other films. And the other shot is some veggies I should be eating. What I notice is there is something very smooth and pleasant about the way it renders a scene.
Attachment 53797 Attachment 53798
I am not sure of what the "reasons you would expect 5222 to be thinker than say 400TX in 35mm? I have not used a micrometer, but have never noticed any real difference, with 5222 or the other long gone MP stocks that I used in the past (4X and XT pan). The 35mm Movie print stocks are thinner than the negative stocks, as they come on a Polyester base, but those are not normally of much use in a camera.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
The 35mm movie stock does have slightly different perforations, but that should not bother most still cameras. (BH 1866 vs KS 1870) The BH perforations actually were used for all 35mm film at one time.
The edge printing does only have key numbers every foot, so you can't just make a note to "print shot 27", but that is hardly a hardship.