Jump to content


Photo

Eastman Tri-X 5233 compared to Double-X 5222


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Simon Howson

Simon Howson

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Student

Posted 31 March 2009 - 10:17 AM

Hello,

I am trying to understand the differences of Eastman's Tri-X 5322 B&W negative introduced in 1954, and the Double-X 5222 negative introduced in 1959.

Is the only difference the speed? My understanding is 5322 was rated at 320 in sunlight, whereas 5222 was rated at 250?

If so, why did Kodak introduce a slower stock in 1959? Was it because it was cheaper than 5322, and thus more attractive to cinematographers who didn't require the extra speed?

Are there any other reasons unrelated to speed or cost?

I'm not a cinematographer, this is just for research.

Thanks,

Simon
  • 0

#2 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 31 March 2009 - 11:06 PM

Eastman's Tri-X 5322 B&W negative introduced in 1954, and the Double-X 5222 negative introduced in 1959.


53xx stock is generally for still cameras, while 52xx is 35 mm movie film. There is no need for the third and fourth digits to be related.
  • 0

#3 Brian Pritchard

Brian Pritchard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Other
  • Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:10 AM

Hello,

I am trying to understand the differences of Eastman's Tri-X 5322 B&W negative introduced in 1954, and the Double-X 5222 negative introduced in 1959.

Is the only difference the speed? My understanding is 5322 was rated at 320 in sunlight, whereas 5222 was rated at 250?

If so, why did Kodak introduce a slower stock in 1959? Was it because it was cheaper than 5322, and thus more attractive to cinematographers who didn't require the extra speed?

Are there any other reasons unrelated to speed or cost?

I'm not a cinematographer, this is just for research.

Thanks,

Simon


Eastman Tri-X negative was 5233. The introduction of Double X was not to particularly replace Tri-x it was a part of a change to the product line. 4X negative 5224 was introduced in 1964 to give a range of speeds with Plus-X 4231/5231 80 ASA, the slowest, then Double-X 5222, 250 ASA and finally 4X 5224 500 ASA which was the high speed film.

The range of films was not to offer cheaper products but a range of products. Faster films have larger grain along with their higher emulsion speed so you chose the stock to suit your requirements.

Brian
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:08 PM

Hello,

If so, why did Kodak introduce a slower stock in 1959? Was it because it was cheaper than 5322, and thus more attractive to cinematographers who didn't require the extra speed?

Are there any other reasons unrelated to speed or cost?


The 5222 is finer grained, sharper Has better latitude.
Thus making it a better al around stock.
'the Night of the Living dead' was shot on tri-X. The forced processing and contrasty lighting has ccaude many to think it was shot in 16mm.

Ilford also introduced a similar stock around the same time, Mark V.

4-XN was a replacement for TXN, and tauted as having the same granularity and resolution with
half stop increase in speed.
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:10 PM

Hello,

I am trying to understand the differences of Eastman's Tri-X 5322 B&W negative introduced in 1954, and the Double-X 5222 negative introduced in 1959.

Is the only difference the speed? My understanding is 5322 was rated at 320 in sunlight, whereas 5222 was rated at 250?

If so, why did Kodak introduce a slower stock in 1959? Was it because it was cheaper than 5322, and thus more attractive to cinematographers who didn't require the extra speed?

Are there any other reasons unrelated to speed or cost?

I'm not a cinematographer, this is just for research.

Thanks,

Simon


  • 0

#6 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 01 April 2009 - 07:22 PM

There used to be something like Super-X or some sort of predecessor to XX.
  • 0

#7 Simon Howson

Simon Howson

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Student

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:53 AM

Eastman Tri-X negative was 5233.

Ah sorry, my mistake.

The introduction of Double X was not to particularly replace Tri-x it was a part of a change to the product line. 4X negative 5224 was introduced in 1964 to give a range of speeds with Plus-X 4231/5231 80 ASA, the slowest, then Double-X 5222, 250 ASA and finally 4X 5224 500 ASA which was the high speed film.

The range of films was not to offer cheaper products but a range of products. Faster films have larger grain along with their higher emulsion speed so you chose the stock to suit your requirements.

The 5222 is finer grained, sharper Has better latitude.
Thus making it a better al around stock.
'the Night of the Living dead' was shot on tri-X. The forced processing and contrasty lighting has ccaude many to think it was shot in 16mm.

Ilford also introduced a similar stock around the same time, Mark V.

4-XN was a replacement for TXN, and tauted as having the same granularity and resolution with
half stop increase in speed.

Interesting info thank you very much both of you for clearing up my confusion.

There were quite a few Black & White Panavision films made around 1964 - 1967. Films Like Kiss Me, Stupid, The Fortune Cookie, Bunny Lake is Missing, In Harms Way, In Cold Blood. Is it likely that some of these were making use of 5224? Just a few years after that period black and white filming was almost completely dead in Hollywood (apparently because B&W films couldn't be sold to TV for as much, people wanted full colour broadcasting).

Anyway, thank you very much for the info.
  • 0

#8 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 02 April 2009 - 03:23 PM

There were quite a few Black & White Panavision films made around 1964 - 1967. Films Like Kiss Me, Stupid, The Fortune Cookie, Bunny Lake is Missing, In Harms Way, In Cold Blood. Is it likely that some of these were making use of 5224? Just a few years after that period black and white filming was almost completely dead in Hollywood (apparently because B&W films couldn't be sold to TV for as much, people wanted full colour broadcasting).


'Mirage' 1965 was shot almost entirely with 4XN, maybe a lot of it pushed. It was made almost entirely on location in NYC. Also 'the Incident' was mostly 4XN. Even rear projection plates for the subway interiors were on 4XN, they relyed on the dirty subway car windows to cover up grain in the plates.

The big irony is just as really fast B/W stocks are coming out, the industry switches to EI 50 color negative.

There were also slow fine grain B/W stocks too. Background-X, EI 40 or 32, which was replaced by
XT Pan neg, EI 25/20.
  • 0

#9 Simon Howson

Simon Howson

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Student

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:05 PM

'Mirage' 1965 was shot almost entirely with 4XN, maybe a lot of it pushed. It was made almost entirely on location in NYC. Also 'the Incident' was mostly 4XN. Even rear projection plates for the subway interiors were on 4XN, they relyed on the dirty subway car windows to cover up grain in the plates.

The big irony is just as really fast B/W stocks are coming out, the industry switches to EI 50 color negative.

There were also slow fine grain B/W stocks too. Background-X, EI 40 or 32, which was replaced by
XT Pan neg, EI 25/20.

Excellent interesting info.

So with rear projection, they would generally want a finer grain stock so that it didn't become really grainy when it was rephotographed with the live action footage?
  • 0

#10 Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 16 April 2009 - 12:06 PM

Hello,

I am trying to understand the differences of Eastman's Tri-X 5322 B&W negative introduced in 1954, and the Double-X 5222 negative introduced in 1959.

Is the only difference the speed? My understanding is 5322 was rated at 320 in sunlight, whereas 5222 was rated at 250?

If so, why did Kodak introduce a slower stock in 1959? Was it because it was cheaper than 5322, and thus more attractive to cinematographers who didn't require the extra speed?

Are there any other reasons unrelated to speed or cost?

I'm not a cinematographer, this is just for research.

Thanks,

Simon




Hi everyone,

I thought i would join this forum because i've been trying to find out more about Eastman type 5222 panchromatic safety film.

I happen to have 5 sealed rolls of it. Each of them are 400 feet. I just wondered whether anyone would be interested in purchasing it from me.

If so, i will list it on ebay. If not i will probably have to do a bit of searching.

If anyone has some use for it, please get back to me.

Regards,

Rob.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Technodolly

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Opal

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

CineLab

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly