Some ruminations on tri-x from a newbie...

[Wells]

Hello list...

First post...

I'm a photographer, and recently "got hooked" myself...I was never a fan of the look of video (save for the ridiculously large amount of footage that can be created for no money...) and recently borrowed a friend's Nizo to film some surfing...I now have 6 rolls of k40 under my belt, and plan to shoot more...

Coming from a photo background gives me a unique perspective, as I find it very intuitive to think in terms of the camera taking still photos over and over, and I already know a lot about lenses, film and emulsions, f-stops, shutter speeds, exposure, studio lighting, etc. but I know very little about the mechanics of motion: dollies, cranes, pans, tilts, editing, flow, etc.

Enough about me, what do you think about me? har-har.

Anyway, I got to thinking that if Tri-x is the same stuff used for still, then it is a very versatile emulsion indeed, and most of it's benefits could be reaped as a negative film. For example, while the reversal process for Tri-x yields a 160 asa film, processed as a neg Tri-x is normally rated at 400-- a one and a third stop advantage. In addition, it can be pushed and pulled widely-- for example, exposing at 100 and underdeveloping the appropriate amount, using a high acutance developer, Tri-x can yield a very fine-grain, sharp result, with a wide lattitude to boot. I would hazard to guess that the result might be better than plus-x reversal. (not to mention pushing to 1600, but the grain would be big as boulders...) Of course, plus-x as a neg film is nominally rated at ASA 125.

Anyone in the home process crowd ever try this? How hard are those russian reels to load (looks like a nightmare, those metal 35mm reels are hard enough)

Naturally, it would have to be telecined or transferred...

Cheers...

Wells

[christoph]

Anyway, I got to thinking that if Tri-x is the same stuff used for still, then it is a very versatile emulsion indeed, and most of it's benefits could be reaped as a negative film.

it's not the same emulsion but it's a very nice stock nevertheless. the EI drops in fact when you process it as negative, so you'll only get about 100-160ASA that way (depending on lighting and processing)...

Anyone in the home process crowd ever try this? How hard are those russian reels to load (looks like a nightmare, those metal 35mm reels are hard enough)

processing is actually quite easy and loading the reels is not too hard... the most problematic part for me always is where to hang the film to dry... ;)

good info to start with:
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavende ... ssing.html
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavende ... lreel.html

++ christoph ++

[Actor]

Anyway, I got to thinking that if Tri-x is the same stuff used for still, ...

It's not. I emailed Kodak a couple of years ago on this very topic and they said it is not the same stuff. Just the same name.

For example, while the reversal process for Tri-x yields a 160 asa film, processed as a neg Tri-x is normally rated at 400-- a one and a third stop advantage.

If memory serves, during this same communication Kodak said that Tri-X motion picture film was one stop slower, not faster, when processed as a negative.

[jumar]

I already know a lot about lenses, film and emulsions, f-stops, shutter speeds, exposure, studio lighting, etc. but I know very little about the mechanics of motion: dollies, cranes, pans, tilts, editing, flow, etc.

There is an awesome directing book called "film directing: cinematic motion". It's sort of a sequel to "film directing: shot by shot" which is one of my favourite film books. "Cinematic Motion" assumes you know everything from the first book, and just focuses on camera movement.

[calgodot]

There is an awesome directing book called "film directing: cinematic motion". It's sort of a sequel to "film directing: shot by shot" which is one of my favourite film books. "Cinematic Motion" assumes you know everything from the first book, and just focuses on camera movement.

Those are both excellent books. I also recommend Grammar of the Film Language by Daniel Arijon.

One of my local labs tells me, "Tri-X is Tri-X." This may be only as far as they are concerned because of processing, though.

[Alex]

Tri-x can yield a very fine-grain, sharp result, with a wide lattitude to boot. I would hazard to guess that the result might be better than plus-x reversal.

A sequel to Soylent Green. Call it Soylent Film. The premise is our hero discovers there really is only one BW reversal stock, and only one Negative stock, and only Color Reversal stock, it's just all about how you rate it.

Our hero screams out at the end of the short film (very short film), it's the same stock, it's the same stock!

---------------------

OK, so it's not as good as "it's dead people", but then again sequels are hardly ever as good as the original.

[Wells]

Thanks all for your replies.

Wells

[sunrise]

I also recommend Grammar of the Film Language by Daniel Arijon.

I don't.

sunrise

[Nigel]

The MP Tri-X and Plus-X stocks are different from the still stocks. They were just overhauled and updated for use with the new reversal processing.

Good Luck

[Alex]

Not from personal experience but I heard that the new Plus-X processing is just amazing and that Tri-X almost looks as good as the previous Plus-X.
A scary thought actually for those who want the grain.

Any first hand observations since the processing formulation was changed a couple of months ago?

[disjecta]

I had some Plus-X film processed a couple of weeks ago at Franklin and the results were beyond amazing. The grain level is almost undetectable and the sharpness cannot be improved upon in my opinion.

I did not try the old Plus-X so I have nothing with which to compare but all I can say is the new one is beautiful and renders Super 8 like I never thought possible.

Steven

[Santo]

Well, this is reassuring to hear about the new Plus-X! I've been pretty concerned since I loved the original so much. Even in my ham-fisted hands it looked beautiful.

Henry's here in Toronto was sold out when I dropped by there a couple of weeks ago to pick some up for a try out. Now I really look forward to giving it a try.

[Alex]

Kodak are you listening? One of your vendors is SOLD OUT!

[S8 Booster]

Listen:

This is what Kodak applies to their pressreleases etc:
(Read: We are BIG. No time for the odd paria minority S8 community - hey, do they (or S8) still exist? Thought they were outta here since long?)

Eastman Kodak Company and infoimaging

Kodak is the leader in helping people take, share, enhance, preserve, print and enjoy pictures -- for memories, for information,...........................................
The company, with sales last year of $13.2 billion, is organized into four major businesses: Photography, providing consumers, professionals and cinematographers with digital and traditional products and services; Commercial Imaging, offering image capture, output and storage products and services to businesses and government; Components, delivering flat-panel displays, optics and sensors to original equipment manufacturers; and Health, supplying the healthcare industry with traditional and digital image capture and output products and services.

No mention of S8/R8/16 there - no?
How much do you think S8 counts for within that figure even if it might be "black" isolated?

My guess is that heir nose is too stuck down in the blood red figures low down at their annual result reports to see that there is a small Small gauge community which love film and our efforts counts nothing to make those figures black even if we ruined ourselves on buying Kodak Film.

My guess it that right now the outta stock Kodak dealer is more remote to their minds than Spirit and Opportunity.

(Besides I believe this is a dealer priority job)

My 2 Turbo Riksdaler.

R

[vidwerk]

I picked up a cart of the new plus-X 7265 a few days ago(direct from Kodak Canada). I'll be shooting it this weekend in snowy conditions up north. I hope to god that the new speed offers the same fine grain as the original.
Any tips from someone that has tried it?

Simon.