film, but related.

[W.Y.Photo]

One good thing about cinematic film like 500T and Double X it looks fantastic when used for still photography

I have heard that. Do you have experience?

I do. For me Double X it is the best, most versatile general purpose film. (I don't shoot colour). Some time ago I shot over 250 feet of tests (in 12 - 18 frames pieces) and have to say if anything is "professional", this material is.

Winding your own off a reel? I dont even know how to do that, just heard of it.

Eh... it is easy. Or at least it would teach you how to keep cool (no sweating hands), be patient, precise without looking and not claustrophobic in small, totally dark places. Actually a good place to be to meet own soul, a opportunity, which digital imaging seems to be devoid of.

Only fools don't use spools.

Lloyd 35mm Bulk Film Loader LL01 B H Photo Video

 

[gsgary]

Ive got 3, 1 has kodak Kodalith 2556, another has Orwo UN54 (iso 100 cinematic film), last one has HP5 and the doubleX I will roll off the 300' as I need a roll

 

[unpopular]

I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!

That was always the best part about shooting film!! lol.

 

[timor]

I used to roll my own film, it was fun to see how many frames I could cram into that canister!

That was always the best part about shooting film!! lol.

Actually my approach is the opposite, 12 - 18 frames max used on 1 or two subjects in order to be not limited in exposure and development methods. And there is more considerations against packing cartridge to the max...

 

[unpopular]

And there is more considerations against packing cartridge to the max...

Well, that's no fun at all!

But yes. Cramming 46 frames into one roll probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight.

 

[timor]

Well, that's no fun at all!

.

And specifically ? What is not ?

 

[bribrius]

what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...

 

[bribrius]

okay did a quick punch up. Depending on where you guys are getting it seems to be you save maybe thirty to fourty cents a roll, assuming you are cutting 36 exposure rolls. So i would have to shoot ten rolls of that a week just to save four dollars. Could be more i have to shoot if doing smaller with leaders etc... This sound right?

 

[gsgary]

okay did a quick punch up. Depending on where you guys are getting it seems to be you save maybe thirty to fourty cents a roll, assuming you are cutting 36 exposure rolls. So i would have to shoot ten rolls of that a week just to save four dollars. Could be more i have to shoot if doing smaller with leaders etc... This sound right?

No I save lots more than that a roll of HP 5 costs me £50 and you can get about 20 rolls

 

[limr]

Yup. HP5 in 100- foot rolls is $50 and change, so $2.50 a roll or so. Cheaper than buying pre-rolled. Kentmere is even cheaper. Tri-X, on the other hand, went up to $100 for 100 feet, and now that means it's really not worth it to bulk roll Tri-X. I just buy that in bricks now.

 

[Designer]

what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...

As usual, the cost factor seldom makes the decision any easier. A hobbyist tends to spend money on stuff that doesn't actually make economic sense, but that may enhance his enjoyment of the hobby.

Besides the bulk roll, you will need a bulk roll loader and several reloadable canisters. Then you need either a really dark room, or a changing bag just to load the canisters. If you choose to develop the rolls at home, you're going to need some more stuff.

I used to load up some short rolls 8 or 10 useable frames just to keep things moving at a fast pace. Also, the short rolls don't drag on the floor when you hang them up to dry.

Of course, you're going to lose cost-efficiency with short rolls.

 

[timor]

what is the price difference between rolling your own and where are you getting these rolls...

As usual, the cost factor seldom makes the decision any easier. A hobbyist tends to spend money on stuff that doesn't actually make economic sense, but that may enhance his enjoyment of the hobby.

Besides the bulk roll, you will need a bulk roll loader and several reloadable canisters. Then you need either a really dark room, or a changing bag just to load the canisters. If you choose to develop the rolls at home, you're going to need some more stuff.

I used to load up some short rolls 8 or 10 useable frames just to keep things moving at a fast pace. Also, the short rolls don't drag on the floor when you hang them up to dry.

Of course, you're going to lose cost-efficiency with short rolls.

Some conscious words. Finally. I started to loose hope. But it is symptomatic. The downfall of film is not in it's lack of beauty, but in this all constant small prices to pay to be able to press the shutter. It is easier to squeeze $1000 from the customer every two years with the promises of... ? What they promise nowadays with new digital cameras ? Whatever. They always omit the part of personal learning and effort. The same as with film.

 

[Derrel]

With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic


thoughts? read this yesterday. still kind of tossing it around.

This made absolutely ZERO sense to me: "Digital archiving is also more expensive than film. One study found that a 2K scan of a feature film would require just under two terabytes to store. In fact, digital archiving is so difficult and costly that Kodak has just announced film specifically designed for archiving digital formats."

I used to work as a theater projectionist. A TYPICAL feature film is made of up six to seven reels of 35mm film, with an average length of about 1,850 feet per reel (as few as 1,700 to as many as 2,000 feet is not unheard of). With the 1,850 foot per reel average, and most films six full reels and a half-filled 7th reel, let's say 6.5 reels x 1,850 feet. That is 12,025 feet of film stock per feature. I have ZERO idea how in the hell "digital archiving is more expensive than film". Who wrote this article? A 2-Terabyte hard drive today is $100 or so, while a 4-Terabyte drive can be bought for $139, on a daily basis, at retail. There's no way in hell that a person can buy 12,025 feet of ANY film stock for a hundred dollars, even by the railroad car load pricing...

Expense? A typical 35mm feature film on individual reels comes, and is shipped and often stored, in two film cans...a 4-reel can and a 3-reel can. These film cans have been standardized since the 1930's, and the cans last **decades** in weekly shipping from theater to theater. Even on cheap,thin, galvanized steel shipping reels, the cans and the film weigh about 40 and 35 pounds, for 75 pounds total (estimate from memory). The shelving alone is expensive, due to the weight that shelves must be able to support. A hard drive is the size of a cigar box. And weighs like two or three pounds or so.

My question is WTF fact-checked this article? According to the editing notes, in the first publication of this article the cost of a print was said to be $50,000, which was then reduced to to $10,000 after somebody noticed the bone-headed mistake...maybe they ought to assign somebody who actually KNOWS something about film prints to give this a look-see once again.

 

[bribrius]

With 35mm Film Dead Will Classic Movies Ever Look the Same Again - The Atlantic


thoughts? read this yesterday. still kind of tossing it around.

This made absolutely ZERO sense to me: "Digital archiving is also more expensive than film. One study found that a 2K scan of a feature film would require just under two terabytes to store. In fact, digital archiving is so difficult and costly that Kodak has just announced film specifically designed for archiving digital formats."

I used to work as a theater projectionist. A TYPICAL feature film is made of up six to seven reels of 35mm film, with an average length of about 1,850 feet per reel (as few as 1,700 to as many as 2,000 feet is not unheard of). With the 1,850 foot per reel average, and most films six full reels and a half-filled 7th reel, let's say 6.5 reels x 1,850 feet. That is 12,025 feet of film stock per feature. I have ZERO idea how in the hell "digital archiving is more expensive than film". Who wrote this article? A 2-Terabyte hard drive today is $100 or so, while a 4-Terabyte drive can be bought for $139, on a daily basis, at retail. There's no way in hell that a person can buy 12,025 feet of ANY film stock for a hundred dollars, even by the railroad car load pricing...

Expense? A typical 35mm feature film on individual reels comes, and is shipped and often stored, in two film cans...a 4-reel can and a 3-reel can. These film cans have been standardized since the 1930's, and the cans last **decades** in weekly shipping from theater to theater. Even on cheap,thin, galvanized steel shipping reels, the cans and the film weigh about 40 and 35 pounds, for 75 pounds total (estimate from memory). The shelving alone is expensive, due to the weight that shelves must be able to support. A hard drive is the size of a cigar box. And weighs like two or three pounds or so.

My question is WTF fact-checked this article? According to the editing notes, in the first publication of this article the cost of a print was said to be $50,000, which was then reduced to to $10,000 after somebody noticed the bone-headed mistake...maybe they ought to assign somebody who actually KNOWS something about film prints to give this a look-see once again.

missed ya bud.... LOL