First experience with Gigabit film

"Some Dude" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald.

I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret
Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't
know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it
seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty
flimsy.

Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy
Cameras?

If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder
if it comes in 120..


I think it is ready now for 120 rolls also. Quite funny it also exist in
4x5" at
ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm


p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra
sharp.

Yes.....it is the sharpest B/W prints I have made. The 35mm film is rated at
ISO 40
and should be able to resolve 720 lp/mm. 20x30cm enlargements is really
overkill for
this film. You can go down with a x15 loupe and details still looks sharp in
the prints.
In this digital wold I don't understand why more people are trying out the
film. I am not experienced with developing film.....and I got very usable
results.

The film is not that expensixe......I got it from the web.... 10 pcs. of
35mm rolls for EUR 95.
That is with everything included ....it comes with a bottle of developer for
each film.


p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me:


I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.


Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

"Some Dude" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald.

I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret
Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't
know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it
seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty
flimsy.

Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy
Cameras?

If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder
if it comes in 120..


I think it is ready now for 120 rolls also. Quite funny it also exist in
4x5" at
ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm


p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra
sharp.

Yes.....it is the sharpest B/W prints I have made. The 35mm film is rated at
ISO 40
and should be able to resolve 720 lp/mm. 20x30cm enlargements is really
overkill for
this film. You can go down with a x15 loupe and details still looks sharp in
the prints.
In this digital wold I don't understand why more people are trying out the
film. I am not experienced with developing film.....and I got very usable
results.

The film is not that expensixe......I got it from the web.... 10 pcs. of
35mm rolls for EUR 95.
That is with everything included ....it comes with a bottle of developer for
each film.


p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me:


I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.


Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm


This may be true but this is for the film itself. In order to tell what it
will do in a camera system you must use the calculation of film resolution
times lens resolution over film resolution plus lens resolution.

Typical calcualtion for this film in a camera system would be

900X500 450000
________ = _________ = 321 l/mm

900+500 1400

So it would be about 321 l/mm system resolution. Far less then 900 for just
the film itself.

Larry

"Hemi4268" skrev i en meddelelse
...
ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm


This may be true but this is for the film itself. In order to tell what
it
will do in a camera system you must use the calculation of film resolution
times lens resolution over film resolution plus lens resolution.

Typical calcualtion for this film in a camera system would be

900X500 450000
________ = _________ = 321 l/mm

900+500 1400

So it would be about 321 l/mm system resolution. Far less then 900 for
just
the film itself.

Larry

OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice
enlargements...... :-)

Max

OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice
enlargements...... :-)

Sure would but the one only problem is most if not all 4x5 lenses are much
lower in resolution then say a 35mm lens. This is due to the f-stops normally
used.

In order to get about 500 lp/mm out of a lens is must be set at f-4 and it must
be used in noon summer sun.

Most 4x5 lenses could be used in noon summer sun but the f-stops would be in
the f-8 or 11 range. The resolution for f-8 is half the resolution of f-4 or
250 l/mm.

New calculation would be 900x250 over 900+250 is 195 lp/mm.

About 1/3 less then the 321lp/mm 35mm or 16mm image.

Larry

"Hemi4268" skrev i en meddelelse
...
OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice
enlargements...... :-)

Sure would but the one only problem is most if not all 4x5 lenses are much
lower in resolution then say a 35mm lens. This is due to the f-stops
normally
used.

In order to get about 500 lp/mm out of a lens is must be set at f-4 and it
must
be used in noon summer sun.

Most 4x5 lenses could be used in noon summer sun but the f-stops would be
in
the f-8 or 11 range. The resolution for f-8 is half the resolution of f-4
or
250 l/mm.

New calculation would be 900x250 over 900+250 is 195 lp/mm.

About 1/3 less then the 321lp/mm 35mm or 16mm image.

Larry

A good photographic paper should be able to resolve 60 lp/mm? .....This will
be hard to
reach for an 8" x 12" enlargement......but should be possible for the 4x5"?

My 35mm Gigabit enlagements looks at least as good as they were made with a
6x6 using TMAX100. Maybe the Gigabit looks even better.....so I am very
surprised.

Max

Nope nothing like that!

They had some "tourism" exhibit and a really, really bad mixed up
exhibit of random cameras with extremely poor gallery lighting (like,
60w incandescent bulbs on the ceiling). There was some "mixed media"
exhibit right when you got in the door on the left but honestly that
was really wanting too....It got a *little* nicer when you got towards
the house (past the gift shop)..Of course his house was awesome..Then
again, that has very little to do with photography.


c'est la vie...


On 12 Jul 2004 19:20:40 GMT, (Hemi4268) wrote:

Funny you should mention. There was no exhibition of any sort like
that there two weeks ago Wish I had seen it. Most of Eastman
Houses really interesting stuff is never displayed from what I hear.


Hi

They may have move things around a little since I was last there about a year
ago or so. The show was located in the passageway form the main house to the
much newer exhibition center. They even had microscopes set up for visitor
viewing.

Larry

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Some Dude wrote:

I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald.

I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret
Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't
know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it
seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty
flimsy.

Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy
Cameras?

Gigabit film is said to be a member of the Agfa Copex family, if not
Copex itself. If so, its original manufacturing purpose is for document
recording -- with high speed cameras, a page at a time under a strong
flash, developed to extremely high contrast and archivally processed,
intended to literally last a thousand years.

Microfilms come on different bases. I have some that's just barely more
flexible than sheet film, and some that feels like the thinner grades of
magnetic tape. If Gigabit feels thin, it might well be on the thinner
base; this is used to allow storing more information (more feet of film,
more page images) in the same volume storage cabinet. It's completely
incidental, of course, for our use of Gigabit; in fact, the stuff would
probably be easier to handle if it were closer to regular 35 mm film in
terms of base thickness.

FWIW, the Gigabit sheet film is probably microfiche with the same
emulsion, and as such similar in handling qualities to conventional
sheet film (but I'm guessing here, having never handled Gigabit).

If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder
if it comes in 120..

You can get Agfa Copex in 35 mm from JandCPhoto.com; developed in Spur
Nanospeed, it's quite a bit cheaper than Gigabit, and gives a higher EI
without much if any loss of quality. However, they don't have it in any
other format.

If you find someone who has some, you can get Copex or Copex Rapid (the
latter supposed to be the stock that becomes Bluefire Police, EI 80 in
H&W Control derived chemistry) in 16 mm unperforated, suitable for some
16 mm cameras -- you can buy it from dealers/distributors only if you're
willing to buy literally thousands of feet at once.

p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra
sharp.

With the right developer and an excellent lens, at high contrast, this
material is capable of recording a page of 10 point text for legible
reproduction at less than 1/4" height. In continuous tone, the lens is
the limitation, not the film -- no matter how good your lens. In a
Minox with Complan, this film is capable of exceeding the detail
recorded in 35 mm on Plus-X with an average 50 mm SLR lens.

p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me:


I still have several

meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Imagelink HQ is a Kodak microfilm, similar on properties to Tech Pan or
Agfa Copex. The Edixa 16 and Minolta 16 MG are subminiature cameras,
the predecessors of the 110 format (especially Minolta, with its drop-in
cassette). I have a Minolta 16 MG, Minolta 16 II, and original Minolta
16, all in working condition. All are capable of producing nice images
on a 10x14 mm negative. All could benefit from faster film than the EI
25 to EI 50 commonly obtainable with microfilms in common low contrast
developers. I'm working on it...

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Some Dude wrote:

I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald.

I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret
Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't
know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it
seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty
flimsy.

Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy
Cameras?

Gigabit film is said to be a member of the Agfa Copex family, if not
Copex itself. If so, its original manufacturing purpose is for document
recording -- with high speed cameras, a page at a time under a strong
flash, developed to extremely high contrast and archivally processed,
intended to literally last a thousand years.

Microfilms come on different bases. I have some that's just barely more
flexible than sheet film, and some that feels like the thinner grades of
magnetic tape. If Gigabit feels thin, it might well be on the thinner
base; this is used to allow storing more information (more feet of film,
more page images) in the same volume storage cabinet. It's completely
incidental, of course, for our use of Gigabit; in fact, the stuff would
probably be easier to handle if it were closer to regular 35 mm film in
terms of base thickness.

FWIW, the Gigabit sheet film is probably microfiche with the same
emulsion, and as such similar in handling qualities to conventional
sheet film (but I'm guessing here, having never handled Gigabit).

If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder
if it comes in 120..

You can get Agfa Copex in 35 mm from JandCPhoto.com; developed in Spur
Nanospeed, it's quite a bit cheaper than Gigabit, and gives a higher EI
without much if any loss of quality. However, they don't have it in any
other format.

If you find someone who has some, you can get Copex or Copex Rapid (the
latter supposed to be the stock that becomes Bluefire Police, EI 80 in
H&W Control derived chemistry) in 16 mm unperforated, suitable for some
16 mm cameras -- you can buy it from dealers/distributors only if you're
willing to buy literally thousands of feet at once.

p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra
sharp.

With the right developer and an excellent lens, at high contrast, this
material is capable of recording a page of 10 point text for legible
reproduction at less than 1/4" height. In continuous tone, the lens is
the limitation, not the film -- no matter how good your lens. In a
Minox with Complan, this film is capable of exceeding the detail
recorded in 35 mm on Plus-X with an average 50 mm SLR lens.

p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me:


I still have several

meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Imagelink HQ is a Kodak microfilm, similar on properties to Tech Pan or
Agfa Copex. The Edixa 16 and Minolta 16 MG are subminiature cameras,
the predecessors of the 110 format (especially Minolta, with its drop-in
cassette). I have a Minolta 16 MG, Minolta 16 II, and original Minolta
16, all in working condition. All are capable of producing nice images
on a 10x14 mm negative. All could benefit from faster film than the EI
25 to EI 50 commonly obtainable with microfilms in common low contrast
developers. I'm working on it...

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Thanks donald for the clarification. Never heard of these cams (or
films)- Will have to go do some research!

Donald you have a "WIP" website?



Imagelink HQ is a Kodak microfilm, similar on properties to Tech Pan or
Agfa Copex. The Edixa 16 and Minolta 16 MG are subminiature cameras,
the predecessors of the 110 format (especially Minolta, with its drop-in
cassette). I have a Minolta 16 MG, Minolta 16 II, and original Minolta
16, all in working condition. All are capable of producing nice images
on a 10x14 mm negative. All could benefit from faster film than the EI
25 to EI 50 commonly obtainable with microfilms in common low contrast
developers. I'm working on it...

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh