Russian film tests

Russian film tests

Anybody wanna discuss film?

This website shows results of film testing by a Russian institute:
* filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html

I deleted all the discontinued films sorted results by resolution,
then tested ISO. Your choice of text or spreadsheet.

* cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.txt
* cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.xls

Comments?

Re: Russian film tests

"Bill Tuthill" <ccreekin@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:457caac4@news.meer . net ...
> Anybody wanna discuss film?
>
> This website shows results of film testing by a Russian institute:
> * filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html
>
> I deleted all the discontinued films sorted results by resolution,
> then tested ISO. Your choice of text or spreadsheet.
>
> * cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.txt
> * cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.xls
>
> Comments?
>

Has the formulation of E100GX changed since it was introduced?
I had tried it when it first came out, and it was a little fuzzy.
But the roll I picked up a few months ago, gave me impressive results.
BTW, Portra400 is my choice for a very good 400 speed film.

Cheers

Re: Russian film tests

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Anybody wanna discuss film?
>
> This website shows results of film testing by a Russian institute:
> * filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html
>
> I deleted all the discontinued films sorted results by resolution,
> then tested ISO. Your choice of text or spreadsheet.
>
> * cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.txt
> * cacreeks . com /filmscanRU.xls
>
> Comments?

Looking at the XP2 and the BW400CB, I can't help but wonder how they
would compare at the same exposed ISO?

I think the table is being generous with Velvia100F.

What is ProPhoto400BW?

Was there an explanation of rational behind the "wild" ISO testing,
some over, some under?

Thanks for the tables,
Jim

Re: Russian film tests


"JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer . net > wrote in message
news:1165824665.129385.233500@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups . com ...
>
> What is ProPhoto400BW?

a discontinued film (Kodak always striving for a new mediocrity)

Re: Russian film tests


JimKramer Wrote:
>
>
> Was there an explanation of rational behind the "wild" ISO testing,
> some over, some under?
>
> Thanks for the tables,
> Jim

I had guessed that they were shooting at "sweet spots" for the
respective films. I was surprised at some of the iso ranges though, 9
stops could be -3/+6, -4/+5, etc. but is pretty impressive for color
film.

-Mark




--
MASL

Re: Russian film tests

JimKramer <jimG@jlkramer . net > wrote:
>
> Looking at the XP2 and the BW400CB, I can't help but wonder how they
> would compare at the same exposed ISO?

You mean if XP2 were (under)exposed at 400? Would resolution decrease?
It's not clear to me whether usable stops and resolution are measured
at the box-speed rating, or at the actual film ISO.

> I think the table is being generous with Velvia100F.

That's probably a discontinued film now, or nearly so, but unfortunately
the Russian institute didn't test new Velvia 100.

Do you think they're being generous with

> What is ProPhoto400BW?

I'm not certain, but I believe it's similar to discontinued Portra 400BW.

> Was there an explanation of rational behind the "wild" ISO testing,
> some over, some under?

Yes-- most films are not accurately rated. There are various categories
expected in certain markets, and depending on what the chemistry yields,
manufacturers provide product in these categories. The most infamous
example was old NPH, which was really a 200 speed film. A less famous
example is Kodak 100UC, which is faster than 100 speed, and probably
very similar (or the same) as Elitecolor 200 in Europe. New Portra 800
seems faster than 800 to me. That's one of the films that was revised
since this testing. Others are the new Portra 160/400s just appearing.