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

["Monte Wilson" <montezinho@bigpond.com>]

PPF 400 for me please!

Monte





----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Katzung <katzung1@attbi.com>
To: APML <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:32 AM
Subject: [APML] FILM QUESTIONS!! Kodak response to film production questions
(really on topic!)


> Hi Folks:
> The question of the Kodak connection sort of dropped off the radar screens
> for a while, but it's now back with a direct query from that Kodak vp
I've
> been e-corresponding with. Here's how it came up: About a week ago I  sent
> him some data from Don Westergren, who is doing a scientific test of
> reciprocity failure (out to two+ hours) in most of the popular print
films,
> plus my own imaging results using Supra800, plus Pat Freeman's web URL,
> since Pat has some excellent and extensive real-world test images on his
> site. Kodak replied "very interesting, it will take me a while to review
all
> this." Yesterday I sent him some additional data from Don's testing
showing
> very quantitatively how the red layer drops after a few seconds exposure
in
> Supra800 and Portra800. WITHIN 4 HOURS  I got an e-mail from Kodak saying
> "VERY INTERESTING! Kodak never checks for reciprocity failure past 100
> seconds." (Of course we knew that from the Kodak tech tables.) Continuing,
> he said "Of course a decision to manufacture an emulsion in 120 format
> requires some assurance of use by the professional community.... What is
> your estimate of the use of one of these films (I had referred to Royal
> Gold400, Supra400, PJ400, and PPF400) in 120 format by people in
astronomy?"
>
> 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?
> 2. How much of each size would you buy per year? (recognize that if the
film
> you choose is Supra or Royal Gold, the minimum required to interest Kodak
> would be much smaller since Kodak still produces these two films in large
> quantities for 35mm format)
> 3. Should we just bag the whole thing and go with E200 and Provia 400F for
> 120?
> 4. Related question: While I don't really think that all the astroimagers
in
> the world can use up enough film to convince Kodak to reactivate a major
> line of films, it would be useful if we could evoke a response from astro
> people outside the APML community. Anybody know how to do that? I would be
> happy to put out messages (like the above) if someone can point me in the
> right direction. I think Warren Keller started this whole thing---Warren,
> did you have any contacts with lists outside APML?
>
>
> I would be interested in seeing your responses to these questions on APML
> for as long as Gene considers it worth the bandwidth and as soon as he
says
> "enough" you can e-mail me directly. (That will teach me to send a letter
to
> Kodak! (;~))    BTW, some of Don's GREAT data should be available shortly.
>
> Bert
>
> Bert Katzung
> katzung1@attbi.com
> www.astronomy-images.com
>
>
>
>
> --  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>