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

From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 14:29:44 PDT

In a message dated 4/6/2010 12:27:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:

I have to vent about this to some people who might understand.

The yellow giant are a mystery to me, from the fact that they refuse to
sell me certain products to the strangee and bizzare choices they make in
their product lineup.

I mean is there anybody here who is a huge fan of double-x negative?
Somebody must be, please speak up.

Well, Double-X is a much older film stock-- might be cheaper to
manufacture, or they might have more of it in storage. It also has a higher film
speed, which appeals to more people- supposedly.
Tri-X reversal was reformulated a few years ago and improved-- they
basically left Plus-X alone but for the bleach step-- which might account for it
winning out over Plus-X--and high ASAs are the future anyway-- there's
nothing unusual about ASA 500 being the baseline for most work, something that
would have been unheard of 30 years ago.
Also, for years Double -X was the more common 35mm B/W camera stock, which
might account for its being chosen over Plus-X neg.
There are other 16mm alternatives. Try the positive release print, or the
sound stock, while they last... They are much cheaper than camera original,

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