New films shown at ICIS by Fuji and Kodak

[dmr]

This may sound kinda stupid, but I was wondering how I would ever meter exposure for such a film? That's like 4-5 stops dimmer than what my cameras can meter. I would love to try something like this for real low light stuff, but are there any inexpensive hand-held meters that are sensitive enough for this kind of film in very low light?

[nworth]

A 24000 speed film with the grain of Tri-X would be a real revolution. It would also be very useful, especially if it has a good characteristic curve. The thermal processing sounds like an excellent, easy, cheap technique. But for large scale use, processing equipment would need to be available.

[Donald Qualls]

Originally Posted by daddeldu

This 1200 ISO negative film, is that COLOR negative?
Thank you for your answer - Hening Bettermann

As I read it, this is B&W, and it's 10x faster than this -- it's not ISO 1200, it's ISO 12 *thousand* (to 24 thousand). That makes it two to three stops faster than Polaroid Type 667, but (according to the original postings) with grain comparable to current ISO 400 silver halide films.

[egdinger]

Donald, daddeldu was asking about the fuji 1200 iso, that seems to have been completly overshadowed by the 24000 kodak emulsion.

To you daddeldu, I don't know, but I want to say that it is color. PE can you chime in here?

[Petzi]

Hardly ever do I encounter a situation where it is too dim for the exposure meter. You just get very long exposure times with regular film.

The 12,000 ASA film might give photographers many new opportunities. For example shooting 8x10" outdoors at f/45 and 1/250 sec.

[Photo Engineer]

Originally Posted by egdinger

Donald, daddeldu was asking about the fuji 1200 iso, that seems to have been completly overshadowed by the 24000 kodak emulsion.

To you daddeldu, I don't know, but I want to say that it is color. PE can you chime in here?

I know nothing about the new Fuji film.

Dr. Tani asked me to take some pictures of his delegation with his camera.

It was available light, with no flash, and he told me it was a new 1200 color film that was not yet available. He described it as being much improved, using technology similar to Provia X to improve grain and sharpness. He said nothing more. In fact, the camera was a new model as well, if I am not mistaken.

I saw no pictures or data.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

Originally Posted by Samuel B

I am intrigued by this dry thermal development. It sounds extraordinary. Revolutionary even. Is there any chance we will see any 'normal' speed films with this type of development? Has this technology been around for long? Could it be applied to a colour film at all? If a ISO 24000 film had similar grain to current ISO 400 film, how good would a ISO 400 version be?
It would be a fairly simple piece of equipment required to develop it, and could be done almost anywhere, I imagine.
All sorts of possibilties for such a film.

At the present time, there are lots of thermally processed analog products on the market. The average consumer or professional does not deal with them, but they exist and have been around for decades. Many companies make these products, mainly for medical imaging.

Processing equipment exists in the marketplace today.

PE

[ajuk]

Has this apeared in any official news articles yet, because untill it does it may just be ignored. I also can't find any references anywhere to the new ISO 1200 Fuji film.

[Photo Engineer]

Originally Posted by ajuk

Has this apeared in any official news articles yet, because untill it does it may just be ignored. I also can't find any references anywhere to the new ISO 1200 Fuji film.

This appeared in the official proceedings of the ICIS organization and the reference to their journal is on www.photo.net. I did not repeat that reference on APUG. Carrying this information is up to the press. How inteterested do you think they are in analog news?

I cannot find a reference to the Fuji film either, but Dr. Tani said it was new and not for sale yet. So, what do you expect? Maybe it will never go on sale. Who knows.

PE

[r-s]

Some comments follow.

I'm somewhat late to the game, having found this thread via a link on a page found via a link in an email received today from the NikonMF mailing list.

So in other words, there hasn't exactly been a full court press to promote the knowledge of the existence (or potential existence, if you rather) of this product.

If Kodak wants to find out how much interest there'd be in this film, they'll have to let people know about it. That means promoting the knowledge of its existence. They will have to get information to "the media". Simply slipping a pre-interest form to some attendees at a highbrow conference attended by a scant few folk (in the grand scheme of things), and then counting on some variant form of "viral marketing" (i.e., one of the attendees uploading a scanned copy of the form to a web forum read by a part of the potential market) is NOT gonna cut it.

But then, this is the same company that at the same time as they manufacture the most unique color film in the world -- Kodachrome -- seems religiously obligated to AVOID promoting it at all (and then mutters occasionally about the lack of interest in the product!)

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

There is a sad irony in hearing that there is a lack of interest in something that almost no one knows about.

Properly promoted, this stuff would fly off the shelves. Look what outdated rolls of stuff like Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, APX 25, etc. and so forth will regularly fetch on that online auction-like venue. Insanely high prices, as people get into bidding wars for the few rolls that pop up on occasion.

No one is gonna convince me that Kodak couldn't run off a single batch of K25 every two or three years and sell it for pretty much any price they name. When expired rolls wills sell for $35 per, well, think about it.

And back to this film -- they hand out a printed form, with instructions to fill it out and return it to a pair of email addresses? Not a single address, but a pair of addresses? A printed form? What???? Fill out this form, and then email it?

The mind boggles.

OK, options? Print it, fill it out, scan it, and email it as an attachment, HOPING that their system will not automatically reject messages from unknown senders carrying attachments? Pretty big thing to expect of folks in this day and age.

Or, maybe the other option is to expect people to manually transcribe the form INTO an email, and then "fill it out" in their email client before sending it?

Again, wow.

They certainly don't expect people to fill the actual form out and stick it in an envelope and mail it to them. They'd have given an address if they expected that. Oh, sure, maybe the USPS will (grudgingly) do a mail dump to "Kodak" in "Rochester, New York" (sans zipcode) -- after (and presuming) the envelope finally makes its way to "Rochester, New York". And, perhaps the envelope (or rather "envelopes", since the directions say to send TWO copies, under separate cover) will eventually make it from "Kodak" to those two individuals.

Obviously I'm not really accepting the snail-mail option as something they really anticipate anyone attempting.

So I'm therefore wondering why they raise so many obstacles to people complying via email?

Couldn't they have spent 15 minutes to put up a simple web response form, and given out the URL on that sheet of paper?

Couldn't they -- if they really insisted on email -- have spent five minutes to set up an email alias (e.g., "24000@kodak.com") and had it redirect to both of those intended recipients?

Not only would that have made the process a bit less onerous, but, it would also have ensured that both of those individuals would have received each email, AND, it would have ensured their privacy, since their names and email addresses would NOT be out in the public arena.

Then there's the laughable bit about wondering why no one will say how many rolls they'd want per year, of a product that has no PRICE attached to it. Not even a price range! (And the same goes for processing cost and availability, since it's a very unique process.)

I could go on, but I'll wrap up this section by saying that if the goal wasn't to "prove" the "lack" of interest, it might as well have been, because they went about things in a way guaranteed to generate a LOT of "lack" of interest! Even people who are interested are not going to "buck the current" via the method given for experessing their interest.

Make it EASY for people to express their interest. Don't make them navigate an obstacle course!

And give them more info. Show them examples of images. Give them something more than an (unoffically) uploaded copy of a printed form that people are somehow supposed to figure out how to email.

Good grief.

Next topic:

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

I thought of the possibility of using the developer section -- or, the long ceramic/quartz heat rods -- from a xerograpphic copier -- but realized that they tend to glow red, which would likely fog the film.

But, I wonder if an air-impingement RC paper dryer would do the trick. It should be able to transport the film, and apply a lot of directed heat at the emulsion.

Each of these "expedient" systems would of course need some tricking out to regulate temperature, but it ain't rocket science for anyone with a modicum of manual dexterity.

In the end though it's probably moot, because I will be very surprised if they actually put this stuff into production. Most likely, they won't tell anyone about it, and then announce that no one is interested. Just like Kodachrome.

So, what ever happened to the IP for that stuff Agfa patented a few years ago, something as I recall that gave standard emulsion (i.e., wet-process) sensitivity in the same ballpark as this heat-process stuff?