Why there´s no new B&W MP films from Kodak?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Carlos 8mm
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:24 am
Location: going bald!

Why there´s no new B&W MP films from Kodak?

Post by Carlos 8mm » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:52 pm

Maybe a silly question, but Kodak´s B&W negative MP films as Eastman Plus-X and Double X were released more than 50 years ago.

Reversal films as Plus-x and Tri-x were released in 1955, with a little improvement today, especially in developing process.

According Kodak, B&W T-grain emulsions don´t make a big difference with the old filmstocks.

If color films were dramatically improved during the last 50 years, why not B&W films? :?


Carlos.
Carlos.

Angus
Senior member
Posts: 3886
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:22 am
Contact:

Post by Angus » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:54 pm

Eh? Weren't plus-x and tri-x both totally overhauled with new emulsions and developing process in 2003 ???
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter :)

Carlos 8mm
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:24 am
Location: going bald!

Post by Carlos 8mm » Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm

Angus wrote:Eh? Weren't plus-x and tri-x both totally overhauled with new emulsions and developing process in 2003 ???
Only Tri-x 7266 got a new emulsion, (this way with the new developing chemistry, this film is less grainy than 7278).

Plus X 7265 is essencially the same 7276. The new D94-A developer and R-10 bleacher allows to get a higher (or maybe the real) speed of film (in the case of Plus -X 7265: ISO 100). Remember that if you want to shoot 7265 as negative, you must to overexpose the film at ISO 25 just like the old 7276.

This is different with Tri-x 7266 because the original speed of the film was reduced because of the new developing formulas. (if 7266 were equal as 7278, with the new chemistry the (reversal) film speed could be 250-320, with silmilar granularity).


Carlos.
Carlos.

Astro
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:34 pm
Location: U.K London
Contact:

Post by Astro » Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:52 pm

Don't touch what isn't broken
:roll:
..partly truth, partly fiction, a walking contradiction.

al77
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:48 pm
Location: NW UK
Contact:

Post by al77 » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:11 pm

Astro wrote:Don't touch what isn't broken
absolutely! tri-x & plus-x look great to me :-)

User avatar
jpolzfuss
Senior member
Posts: 1586
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:16 am

Post by jpolzfuss » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:33 pm

Uhoh! We shouldn't have mentioned these films here! John P. will probably now tell Kodak to replace them with some 88 and 324 ASA films so that Kodak can get rid off Super8 due the lack of consumer's interest in one or two years completely!

Carlos 8mm
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:24 am
Location: going bald!

Post by Carlos 8mm » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:17 pm

jpolzfuss wrote:Uhoh! We shouldn't have mentioned these films here! John P. will probably now tell Kodak to replace them with some 88 and 324 ASA films so that Kodak can get rid off Super8 due the lack of consumer's interest in one or two years completely!
Why? I´m talking about new B&W films that can benefit S8 filmmakers.

A new fine-grain B&W filmstock intended for 35 & 16mm could be released for super 8 as Kodak did with V2 200T and 500T and *maybe* V2 50D.

Carlos.
Carlos.

Angus
Senior member
Posts: 3886
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:22 am
Contact:

Post by Angus » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:20 pm

But there's actually nothing wrong with tri-x and plus-x....and in addition they are "brand" names that photographers know and trust.
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter :)

David M. Leugers
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 12:42 am

Post by David M. Leugers » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:43 pm

Jeez.... with all the fuss over what Kodak should or should not do with color film stock... Just a question, when was the last time anyone has gone to a theatre to see a new movie shot in B+W? Why on earth should Kodak devote millions of dollars into research to develop an improved B+W motion picture stock??? Especially when what is available already is so freakin good? I love B+W but I don't see where improving it more than it already is should be a high priority with anyone. If I was to dream, I would wish for an ultra sharp fine grained 25 ASA stock. Even then, it would be hard to beat Plus-X reversal.
8)

David M. Leugers

sophocle
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:26 am

Post by sophocle » Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:52 pm

I toyed with the idea to have TMX fitted in S8 carts by pro8mm, and then sent to dr5 for reversal processing.

I have worked with tmx reversed for decades--I can guaratee that this will result in a completely grainless super 8 image.

But whether it will look better than plus x I am not convinced--in fact I would not want tmx image for people photography.

And then there is the halation problem--so I am not sure the experiment is worth it at all.

mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias » Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:11 pm

t-max negative would be nice...

/matt

User avatar
Nigel
Senior member
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
Real name: Adam
Location: Lost

Post by Nigel » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:03 pm

There are....

Shoot color and then pull it all out in Xfer.

That is what I wanted to do on a shoot last fall but the director just wouldn't listen. Mostly because he was confused. It makes for a really great look when you pull almost all the color out and you are left wondering if what you saw was color or B&W.


Good Luck

Carlos 8mm
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:24 am
Location: going bald!

Post by Carlos 8mm » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:17 pm

mattias wrote:t-max negative would be nice...

/matt
That´s the point.

Why Kodak can´t improve B&W MP films using T-grain technology?

Many people shoots using color negative films and the final copy is B&W.

New B&W stocks could reduce the costs in this case.

Carlos.
Carlos.

User avatar
etimh
Senior member
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by etimh » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:12 pm

Nigel wrote: It makes for a really great look when you pull almost all the color out and you are left wondering if what you saw was color or B&W.
That sounds like a nice effect. But there is a distinct difference between "black and white" that is just color drained in post and true B&W film. I've seen both, as I'm sure you have, and its quite obvious to me.

If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what else to say.

Tim
FilmAid International
http://www.filmaid.org

mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:20 pm

etimh wrote:That sounds like a nice effect. But there is a distinct difference between "black and white" that is just color drained in post and true B&W film.
true, but isn't that most likely because the black and white stocks are old? 7222 which i've shot a lot of looks the way it does because it's super grainy, rather soft, has very little highlight detail and a quite annoying but cool tendency to flare "internally". a modern black and white stock would probably look a whole lot more like color without color. after all color film is just three layers of black and white, even though i guess the dyes have slightly different characteristics than silver grain. maybe this is the reason they don't release a new one? those who shoot black and white want it to behave and look like it always has?

/matt

Post Reply