amazing resolving power...

[edgar_njari]

I just discovered this film from Kodak..

 

Eastman High contrast pancrhromatic film 5369

It resolves 630 lp/mm at the contrast of 1000:1

 

Basicly it is the film that was used for optical compositing

in old motion picture effects (well, not that old, optical

compositing was used untill the early 90's). I think it is used today

for making titles.

 

It is very high contrast so you usually get black or white silhouettes

from objects. This is why it was used for making mattes from blue

screen photography. No wonder that it resolves so much..

 

I didn't know there are films that resolve that much..

 

Are there any other experimental, industrial or whatever films

that resolve as much as that?

 

630 lp/mm would be something like 30000x45000 resolution just for

35mm film. Amazing.

[steven_clark]

And now I know what material I'd record on for my idea of a deconvolution target.

[edgar_njari]

Well if you are talking about satelites (sounds like it)

this can't be it because this film can not render fine gradations,

any image would be useless unless you want a special high contrast look (you usually get only two tones with it, black and white) or

you want to use it in a motion picture optical printer (this is what it is designed for)

[rowland_mowrey]

We used a different film.

 

It was continuous tone, very high resolution, moderate speed, low grain. Not available to common mortals. Made by Eastman Kodak as well.

 

Ron Mowrey

[john_shriver]

Some of the duplicating microfilms are even higher resolution. 2468, 3468, 4468, and 2470 are 1000 lines/mm at 1000:1 contrast. Kodak Imagelink HQ (1461, 2461, & 3461) source document (camera) microfilm has 800 lines/mm at 1000:1 contrast.

 

I've played around with an expired 100 foot roll of 35mm perforated 2468 I got for $1. The EI is under 1, at least with continuous tone developers. (Tripods at f/1.8 in bright sunlight.) It's reversal film that reverses in conventional developers.

 

Microfilms tend to only be sold in large case lots. (Nobody uses just a little of it.) Very few are available in 35mm with perforations, most is unperforated.

[silent1]

<i>Microfilms tend to only be sold in large case lots. (Nobody uses just a little of it.)</i><p>

 

Unfortunately, one application exists in which microfilm is best in one or two 100' rolls, not a case of 1000' rolls, as it the common packaging: subminiature cameras. I have a 100' roll of Kodak Imagelink HQ, around 100' of Agfa Copex Rapid, and an unopened 100' roll of Fuji Super HR, all intended for (eventual) use in my Minolta 16 format cameras. That amount of film makes more than 160 rolls for those cameras (20 exposures is less than 24 inches long, including header and tail), which will take a very long time to use up since I have only four cassettes.<p>

 

Fortunately, these slow emulsions keep very well, long past expiration, and the expiration is conservative for microfilm applications anyway; the Fuji is in my freezer, the others out for occasional use reloading cassettes.

 

BTW, I might suggest that the 5369 can probably be used with a low contrast developer like POTA or Technidol for continuous tone, though it will lose a great deal of resolution in that application -- those specs are very similar to Copex Rapid and Imagelink HQ, including the 1000:1 contrast. You can also develop in HC-110 Dilution G, with reduced agitation or stand development, in Diafine with Bath A diluted 1:50, both at 2x normal pictorial speed (which is probably EI 25 with POTA or Technidol), and with Caffenol LC.

[rowland_mowrey]

One cannot ignore the contribution of BIMAT film. It was used to obtain very high quality images from space.

 

I should have mentioned that before.

 

It used a monobath or two part imaging sensor and a reciever / processor.

 

Ron Mowrey

[andre_noble4]

"We used a different film.

It was continuous tone, very high resolution, moderate speed, low grain. Not available to common mortals."

 

Did it go by the name of 'Ilford'? :>)

[rowland_mowrey]

Andre;

 

You obviously missed the next sentence. "Made by Kodak".

 

It was made by Eastman Kodak and supplied to the US Government for aerial photographic use.

 

Quite frankly no one could match the quality.

 

In fact, Eastman Kodak and a few other companies could not be matched for camera and lens quality either, but no mere mortal could pay the price because of US prices. Kodak could have made a camera that would 'knock the socks off' any Nikon or Canon back in the 50s or 60s, but the camera would have cost $10,000 or so. That was the fundamental problem. In fact, EK and other US companies did supply special satelite cameras and films for NASA and the USAF.

 

At the present time, EK could probably outdo any other company in the world for quality, but the price would be exorbitant due to US wages, costs due to environmental concerns, taxes, and other similar issues.

 

Ron Mowrey

[__jon__]

>Did it go by the name of 'Ilford'? :>)

>Rowland Mowrey , jul 11, 2004; 12:37 a.m.

 

>Andre;

 

>You obviously missed the next sentence. "Made by Kodak".

 

You obviously missed the smiley face at the end of his comment. Or did all those years of smelling blix erode your sense of humor?

 

:) <--- smiley

[rowland_mowrey]

Jon;

 

Blix actually eroded my sense of smell, so I can't smell a bad joke. Heh.

 

Ron Mowrey :-D

[kevin_jesequel]

Check this stuff out:

 

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/catBluefire.htm

 

I haven't tried it, but it looks like it would be fun to play with. They also have an Agfa film on this page:

 

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/catPersonalMicrofilm.htm

[peter_svensson]

Ron said: "Blix actually eroded my sense of smell.."

 

Did it really? I guessing you're joking, but I did recently hear of a friend-of-a-friend who claimed color chemicals destroyed his sense of smell.

[rowland_mowrey]

I have never appeared to have a problem with the chemistry involved.

 

I was checked on a 6 month basis in a health program by EK and had complete blood tests for over 20 years for just such effects.

 

All of my health problems are related to old age. Well, almost all. By the time I retired, I had high blood pressure. Stress, I guess.

 

:-(

 

Ron Mowrey

[bill_tuthill]

Gigabitfilm 25 (Agfa Copex packaged with Rodinal) supposedly resolves

900 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast, Gigabitfilm 50 supposedly 720 lp/mm.

But I doubt anybody achieves this datasheet resolution in real life.

[amelieeugene]

It's not a very good argument to say the cost/price is the reason for a commercial company to be unable to sell something in a free market world. The more accurate statement should be "due to inefficiencies and flaws in the management the company has lost it's market share to competitors"

 

A defeat is a defeat, Don't say you could have won the game if wasn't because....

[rowland_mowrey]

Eugene;

 

Then why are we outsourcing a lot of programming and help desks to India? Price. It costs too much in the US to do business. Even EK is now making film and paper in China and Mexico.

 

I have met Japanese engineers who made cameras in Japan and those from the US. The pay scale differences were huge.

 

Today, Japan is starting to hurt as pay scales become more comparabile, but I have been in their homes and seen how meager the Japanese lived.

 

Among other things, EK is having trouble hiring in some areas of expertise due to climate of all things. Who would live in Rochester when they could live in souther california?

 

So, Eugene, your answer is rather a simplistic one in the face of a grave situation in which EK, Fuji, Agfa and all other film companies as well as GM, Ford, etc are caught. The digital revolution has just made it harder on film companies.

 

So, EK did make some of the finest cameras ever produced, as well as lenses. Look in your history books on photography. You cannot claim inefficent management for just about every US company. The problems are endemic around the world in high tech countries as 2nd and 3rd world countries come up to par in technology.

 

Ron Mowrey

[peter_svensson]

OT: returning to the health angle, googling a bit told me formaldehyde can destroy the sense of smell. I guess the guy I heard about may have been careless with C41 stabilizer.

[rowland_mowrey]

Peter;

 

Formaldehyde reacts with gelatin or just about any amino acid. It is quite reactive and not very nice. In low concentration, such as in stabilizers, it is not very harmful. But, yes, you are right.

 

Ron Mowrey

[silent1]

<i>I did recently hear of a friend-of-a-friend who claimed color chemicals destroyed his sense of smell.</i><p>

 

As someone else already confirmed, formaldehyde (in quite low concentrations) kills the nerve sells that act as scent receptors. Fortunately, these are the only nerve cells in the human body that regenerate continually (they have to, as their receptors become blocked and must be replaced by replacing the cell), and as a result the anosmia due to formaldehyde is temporary -- in a matter of weeks (following cessation of exposure to formaldehyde), the sense of smell will completely return to normal.<p>

 

If you don't work in a mortuary, that's likely to be a good thing...

[kparratt]

Back to the comment posted above: "Microfilms tend to only be sold in large case lots. (Nobody uses just a little of it.)" It actually seems that a substantial number of people would like to use "just a little of it."

 

However, what you can't do creatively with "just a little of" Bluefire Police, Gigabitfilm, or even EFKE 25 with some intelligent processing, ...probably aint worth doin'.

 

Kevin P.

[reuben_c]

Zinc can destroy your sense of smell. The next time you think about treating your common cold with zinc nasal spray, remember that lab animals have their sense of smell wiped out by spraying zinc up their noses.

 

As to high resolution and microfilms, Ilford makes a color microfilm, available in rolls, and fiche formats, with astounding resolution. It is pretty much a camera film implementation of cibachrome/ilfochrome.

 

It's very slow, and is available in two contrast ranges. With proper filtration and a tripod, it might make for an interesting landscape film.

 

I hope Scott is not reading this...

[rainer_nagel]

Hi, anybody any experience to share with ilford ILFOCHROME MICROFILM since 2004 ?

Type M

color slide film (?)

tungsten 3200K, 1 ASA speed, 365 LP/mm at contrast 1:1000, RMS 6

 

rainer