Re: [APML] FILM QUESTIONS!! Kodak response to film production questions (really on topic!)

["Bert Katzung" <katzung1@attbi.com>]

Thanks, Joe:
I think Don's data will show that Supra400 isn't quite as good as PPF or
PJ400, but still darn good. One question that I neglected and probably isn't
as important anyway, is how many of us routinely hyper? I bought the kit,
but I find the process an extra time drain and setting up a purge is
something I still haven't done.
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@attbi.com
www.astronomy-images.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Pedit" <pedit@email.unc.edu>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] FILM QUESTIONS!! Kodak response to film production
questions (really on topic!)


> Bert Katzung wrote:
> >
> > So here are some questions for APML:
> > 1. If you could specify ONE Kodak 400 speed color print film to
> > be available in both 35 and 120 format, which would it be?
>
> Bert,
>
> I would choose Supra 400 because:
> 1.  as you have noted, it is a film that is still in production;
> 2.  Supra 400 has a lower print grain index than Royal Gold 400
> (however, the PGI may not be a good indicator of grain aliasing when
> scanned);
> 3.  Supra is marketed as a pro film while Royal Gold is marketed as a
> high end consumer film --> the pro designation may make it easier to
> sell Supra in sufficient volumes to justify continued production.
>
> If the ongoing film test indicate that Supra 400 isn't the best choice
> for imaging, then my three reasons for choosing Supra aren't very good
> ones.  :)
>
> Thanks for your efforts with Kodak.
>
> Joe
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>