Might be the end of the line for Agfa Photo...

Fuji or Ilford might be interested in some of the patents,
but sadly, never the "overhead"...

Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris

wrote:

Fuji or Ilford might be interested in some of the patents,


What of the patents Agfa acquired which allow for
a ten fold increase in film speed? Do you know anything
of work being done to bring those films to market?
Why is the industry being so hush-hush? Dan

wrote:
wrote:

Fuji or Ilford might be interested in some of the patents,

What of the patents Agfa acquired which allow for
a ten fold increase in film speed? Do you know anything
of work being done to bring those films to market?
Why is the industry being so hush-hush? Dan

Hmm; that sounds suspiciously to me like the patents on products you
used to see in the back of _Popular Mechanics_ and such, guaranteeing
you twice the gas mileage or more with some gizmo that injected water
into the fuel mixture.

If they had something that "allow[ed] for a ten fold increase in film
speed", why didn't they sell it?

REavid Nebenzahl wrote:

If they had something that "allow[ed] for a ten fold
increase in film speed", why didn't they sell it?


Dr. Chapman in a Photo. Tech. article about four
years ago reported the discovery. I've also read news
releases via the WWW. A product of French reasearch
and Agfa picked up the patents.

The Dr. thought we would be seeing something on the
shelfs about now. But, AFAIK, not a PEEP. Dan

I read a few years ago about some sulfur compounds used for emulsion
production, which would lower number of photons required for latent
image formation - from three to two. Otherwise, nothing.




On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:30:52 GMT, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

Fuji or Ilford might be interested in some of the patents,

What of the patents Agfa acquired which allow for
a ten fold increase in film speed? Do you know anything
of work being done to bring those films to market?
Why is the industry being so hush-hush? Dan

Hmm; that sounds suspiciously to me like the patents on products you
used to see in the back of _Popular Mechanics_ and such, guaranteeing
you twice the gas mileage or more with some gizmo that injected water
into the fuel mixture.

If they had something that "allow[ed] for a ten fold increase in film
speed", why didn't they sell it?

On 4 Nov 2005 15:02:40 -0800, wrote:

REavid Nebenzahl wrote:

If they had something that "allow[ed] for a ten fold
increase in film speed", why didn't they sell it?


Dr. Chapman in a Photo. Tech. article about four
years ago reported the discovery. I've also read news
releases via the WWW. A product of French reasearch
and Agfa picked up the patents.

The Dr. thought we would be seeing something on the
shelfs about now. But, AFAIK, not a PEEP. Dan

Yep. Looks to be another product buried in the beauracracy of accounts
and managers.

====

Faster, More Sensitive Film
Could Make Accurate Nighttime Photos

By Chris Tomlinson
The Associated Press
Dec. 22, 1999

Scientists say they have found a way to produce photographic film
that is 10 times more sensitive to light, an advance that could make
true-to-life pictures of candlelight dinners possible without a flash
or muted colors.
Agfa, the European film manufacturer that sponsored the study and
holds the patent, would not comment on when the film might become
available commercially. And researchers acknowledged more work is
needed to determine how well it can reproduce certain colors.
But if the approach works, it could revolutionize photography,
improving on the basic design that has been around since the 1840s.

All Available Light
In a study published in Thursday?s issue of the journal Nature,
researchers at the University of Paris-Sud said they have managed to
capture every bit of available light on film by adding a simple
chemical.
?A real breakthrough,? said Richard Hailstone, a scientist at the
Rochester Institute of Technology.
A camera focuses light from an object onto film, which is made
of plastic with a chemical layer. The film uses two kinds of
light-sensitive crystals ? halide crystals and silver crystals ? to
produce an image.
When a bit of light, called a photon, strikes one of the halide
crystals, it breaks an electron loose. Ideally, that electron combines
with a nearby silver crystal.

Picked Up Electrons Recorded
Later, when the film is placed in a developer, the silver crystals
that picked up electrons darken and stick to the plastic while the
rest are washed away. The result is a negative.
One photon of light cuts loose one electron, but most of the time
the electron quickly returns to the halide instead of combining with
the silver. As a result, most film is not very efficient. In dim
light, long exposure times are needed to capture enough photons to
create an image.
The French researchers added a chemical called formate to the
crystals. That kept the loose electrons from recombining with the
halide crystals. So every electron knocked loose by a photon was
captured by a silver crystal.

Other Options Ruin Film
Other chemicals can keep electrons from recombining with the halide
crystals, but they ruin the film?s ability to produce an image.
The chief researcher, Jacqueline Belloni, said her technique
could be used to make images with greater clarity or to take pictures
in very low light without a flash.
The new film could also widen the gap in picture quality between
conventional photography and no-film digital photography, which has
been growing in popularity.
One remaining question is how the technique will work in with
dyes that allow film to record red light, Hailstone said. Belloni said
further research will have to look at the question.
Researchers at Eastman Kodak Co. said they have been
experimenting with chemicals that do the same thing that formate does.
They said it may be hard to make commercial film with formate.

Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

===

Regards,

John Douglas - Formula, Documents & Manuals for the Silver Darkroom
Websites : http://www.darkroompro.com - http://www.puresilver.org

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:27:48 -0600, John
wrote:

[... snip ...]
Agfa, the European film manufacturer that sponsored the study and
holds the patent,
[... snip ...]

And that is the exact reason why I don't believe it. Patents are
public documents, and are required to explain the process in
sufficient detail so anybody "skilled in the art" can reproduce the
results. There is a period from the application date (normally 18
months) when the patent is not publicly available, but after that date
it should be in the various public databases out there, which can be
easily accessed by anyone over the web.

There are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of patents attributed
to Agfa in the databases, so actually locating the patent in question
my be a bit of a chore, but anything which was patented in 1999 is out
there to be found.

Actually getting it into production is an entirely different matter,
though.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

Helge Nareid wrote:

There are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of patents attributed
to Agfa in the databases, so actually locating the patent in question
my be a bit of a chore, ...


Are not patents attributed to individuals? In this case some person
or persons at the French University? Tracking patent holders may not
be as easy as tracking land owners. How about giving the fellow who
wrote that article a call or eMail? Contact Paris-Sud.
There is just a chance an at home treatment could accomplish what
only scores of millions of dollors could do by mass producing. Dan

On 5 Nov 2005 14:20:16 -0800, wrote:

Helge Nareid wrote:

There are likely to be hundreds if not thousands of patents attributed
to Agfa in the databases, so actually locating the patent in question
my be a bit of a chore, ...


Are not patents attributed to individuals? In this case some person
or persons at the French University? Tracking patent holders may not
be as easy as tracking land owners. How about giving the fellow who
wrote that article a call or eMail? Contact Paris-Sud.

You are indeed right in that patents are attributed to individuals,
but their affiliation and the owner of the patent is also normally
given. Now that you mention it, I do not remember whether this is a
requirement.

Even so, the online patent search engines have pretty sophisticated
search techniques and patent databases are designed for efficient
topic searches, so it should be possible to find the patent without
any names or companies. A comprehensive patent search is not a trivial
effort, however, particularly if you don't have much experience.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no inclination to make the effort for
what seems to me to be a case of wishful thinking.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

I spent a couple of minutes searching for the Agfa's recent patents
related to "formate" and "photosensitivity", and the following three
appear to be the invention described a few years ago.

US Patent numbers: 6,277,549 6,344,311 6,436,625

Patent lookup by number: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

The patent's value may have been overstated in the past, and novelty in
a dead market rarely is rewarded.

Mike.