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

From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 15:16:03 PDT

>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.

Lets hope it's not just a bunch of it in storage as it will be the only b&w camera negative left!
>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.

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.
>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.
I've heard this but I've never heard anyone express a love for the stock.

>There are other 16mm alternatives. Try the positive release print, or the
>sound stock, while they last... They are much cheaper than camera >original, too.

Welll in the past Kodak has always refuseed to sell me those, but Kodak UK are preety weird. Maybe they will have changed as the staff change and move on etc. Agfa were at least prepared to sell me their sound stock but it seemed to be about the same cost as Kodak b&w neg. I ended up putting the whole idea on hold as it seemed a big hastle, but now with no lab here I was starting to look at it again.

Oh well, thats progress for you, or something.




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