Re: Why couldn't it have been double-x!???

From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 16:28:31 PDT

I know that tri-x still is a different film, even the grain looks different but I suspect there must be something in common in the manufacture of the two that has led to them having the same name. Maybe I'm wrong tho and their decision is unrelated to that??

I know I SHOULD be able to get this stuff from Kodak, but the fact remains that I havn't been able to despite the fact it wasn't a special order item.
They were just like "we can only sell that to labs". Not helpful. I seem to remember them saying it came on a 1200ft core, but I pointed out that wasn't a problem for me. They just didn't want to sell me it. To be honest they often seemed reluctant to sell me anything! Weird company.

Agfa OTOH were really helpful.




In a message dated 4/6/2010 3:26:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:
I think
  it would be a big decision to remove tri-x in 35mm still film too where it is
  kind of huge. I wish they would re-introduce Tri-x neg tho. Has to be nicer
  than double-x neg.

Tri-X still is a different film with a different film speed. There'd
be a riot if they got rid of that.

And you should be able to get anything from Kodak at their distribution
centers-- some stocks have minimums but many do not.
BTW, Kodak says they will be bringing out some new super 8 stocks, so who
knows what's up? I'm just glad they're still around.
But yes, Double-X neg over Plus-X neg is baffling.... 
And-- if Kodak is axing Plus-X neg for movies, then the still version is
soon to go as well...
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.


For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.