I still have about a hundred feet of aerographic double x in my fridge - unexposed end rolls from an aerographic photographer. It's coated on a 2.5mil estar base - way too thin to use with a conventional 4x5 or 5x7 holder (for comparison, tri-x 4x5 sheet is coated on a 7mil estar base). The only way to use the stuff I have is with an adhesive holder. It's a truly unique film. It doesn't seem to have any anti-halation backing as specular highlights exhibit halide migration effects. Also, no shoulder at all which, if handled in a non-hamfisted fashion, can yield beautiful prints from high key exposures. In my experience, prints from xx negs souped in pyro appear even sharper than my prints from pyro fp4 negs. It would be interesting to see how much of an effect, if any, base thickness has on resolution.
Has Mr. can ham confirmed base thickness?
35 and 120 are the same thickness (at least for still films), though they don't seem like it because of the width.
4x5 is thicker, so the sheets might fit a little loosely in holders, but it probably isn't enough to matter much for most purposes.
I haven't heard anything about the base thickness. But this was just posted on Facebook.
It's looking good!
It is time for another update on the co-op for Kodak special order 4x5 Double X film. I have been trying to find the words to express how amazing this all is. I first asked about interest on Monday. Now, Thursday morning I have 42 names on the list and 123 boxes. Who could have imagined. If you have questions about what Double X emulsion is, please read the comments on the two earlier posts. Thank you to everybody who has shared about the project. All of you make things like this happen.
I believe 120 is actually thinner than 35 mm, which in turn is thinner than sheet film. 35 mm needs to be stronger for movie cameras I think and so must have enough thickness so the sprocket holes won't break, unlike 120
That's what seems to be the case if the numbers here are correct:
Originally Posted by Karl A
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by frobozz
from what i have just read and understand the film will be on the 5222 base which is thicker than 120 + "normal" 35mm film but a teensy weensy bit thinner than 4x5 film ..
there's info on the canham camera facebook page
I found this looking up D 96 developer
Special order Eastman Double-X in 4x5 sheet.
Yea as I sad on LFF, I've sent a message to the main site guy but didn't want to sign up to another forum, but if momentum slows (seems steady at 20-30 boxes a day) I'll sign up to get more people. But thanks it's appreciated
Originally Posted by smithdoor
As others have mentioned, there are many thicknesses of Poly film. Typically it is made slightly thiner than the acetate base in order to arrive at a film with about the same overall stiffness.
The high strength and tear Resistance of Poly allows the 2.5 mil base to be used, I recall using Microfilm stock back in the 1980 era that came 215 feet on what is commonly considered as a 100ft spool.
Sheet film is normally on a thicker (7 Mil) stock, no mater if made from Poly or Acetate. Although Poly is generally preferred as the disadvantages of Poly in other uses (Light Piping and failure to yield in a camera jam) don't apply to sheet film.
I am not sure if the proposal in this case is to just cut some sheet film sizes chunks from a Master roll of 5 mil 5222/7222 stock or to prepare some sheet film base with 5222 coating.
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville
It's got to be the former; I can't even imagine the minimums Kodak would require to do the latter.
Originally Posted by cmacd123