From: Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 08/05/00-04:35:06 PM Z
At 04:49 PM 08/05/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>What about FP4 or a double emulsion film like Ektapan (which would seem a
>priori to offer better expansion/contraction possibilities). What makes
>Super-XX so much more desirable?
>
Most older films used double coating to increase exposure latitude.
Double coating has the fault of causing decreased resolution compared to a
single thin coating. However, the technique is still used in some modern
color films. Agfa, for instance has as many as three layers per color in
some of its color films. these layers are exceedingly thin.
Ektapan has very different characteristics from Super-XX. It is a fairly
long toe film, Super-XX was very short toe with a long straight line portion.
It shoud be noted that roll and sheet Super-XX had somewhat different
sensitometric characterists. The Roll film, from Kodak data, seems to have
been a medium toe film.
Super-XX sheet film also had higher green and red senstivity than most
othe films of the time. This together with the straight line characteristic
made it work well or color separation negs.
T-Max 100 has a similar very long straight line characteristic and
similar spectral characterilstics. Because it has a thin emulsion it is
more sensitive to time and temperature variations in development. It is
very controllable once you figure out that its contrast change faster than
other films.
Super-XX was a rather grainy film with rather low resolution. I suspect
that if Kodak started making it again many would complain that "it was not
the same anymore" and find not so satisfactory as memory suggests it should
be.
I beleive Kodak still makes a motion picture stock under the Super-XX
name. It may even be the old stuff but I suspect not.
---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles,Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09/18/00-10:20:30 AM Z CST