Iso 24,000

[sbug]

Seriously. Kodak may do it. Holy crapola would that would give a new meaning to 'available dark'. More here (follow the link to the APUG forums for an evaluation request form):

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/05/iso-24000-film-from-kodak.html

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

It would save me buying the Noctilux.

This 'thermal developing' sounds new. Could we do it in a microwave oven do you think?

 

[Silva Lining]

imagine the grain though ! - a 6x4 print would consist of just 4 large blobs...

 

[jan normandale]

I saw some shots taken in a train station by an amateur who was long on chemistry. He was able to shoot film at night and by his devleoping process achieve 16 000 - 20 000 ISO . Unfortunately he took it with him when he left for the big darkroom in the sky. I corresponded w his personal friend and even he wished he had shared.

 

[Pherdinand]

push processing had examples right here on RFF of iso 100 000-ish. I guess Kodak talks about a film that has somewhat normal tonal range and acceptable grains at iso 24000.
The thermal development stuff sounds like it's kind of polymer that needs baking to stabilize (?) like stuff used in UV lithography etcetera.

I'm curious. Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[jonasv]

24,000 ISO isn't remarkable in itself. I regularly shoot at 6400 ISO and get publishable shots, from there it's only a two-stop push. I've seen OK pictures online of up to 100,000 ISO. Kodak themselves claim their TMZ is a variable ISO film that can be used up to 50,000 ISO. What I'm saying is that if Kodak are serious about releasing a 24,000 ISO film, that needs a specialised, dedicated developing process; the quality should equal that of current 3200 ISO film. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

 

[jlw]

No, look at it this way: If they can get acceptable grain at ISO 24,000, think how fine the grain could be at more normal speeds...

Actually, there's a lot of interesting info in the abstract that suggests this could require a whole new way of thinking about film. For example:

"In a silver halide photothermographic system, all of the development products are confined in the coated layer and are not washed out." Translation: Processing equipment doesn't require water or drain connections and emits no effluents.

"Upon extended heating, negative development abruptly shuts down in the exposed areas and is followed by high-density fog development. The result is a high-speed, direct-positive photographic image with good image structure." Translation: The film is self-reversing, and most of its density is built up by fog, meaning it should be virtually grainless. For example, in shadow areas (little exposure) negative development shuts down quickly because there's only a small amount of exposed silver halide, and then a large amount of fogging builds up so the shadow looks dark.

Implications: Well, let's look at the workflow of today's dominant imaging system, digital photography. Your camera records images on an expensive, non-interchangeable sensor that becomes obsolete every few years, and then you record the images on expensive memory cards that are vulnerable to data corruption and accidental erasure. When you've finished photographing, you insert the memory cards into a computer device (card reader) that permits you to store, view and print the images.

People seem to love this workflow and are buying this equipment by the kazillion. Now, let's just substitute a few components:

Your camera records images on an inexpensive, replaceable sensor that can easily be upgraded whenever technology improves, and then you record the images on a robust medium that's invulnerable to data corruption and cheap enough to be disposable once the images have been retrieved. When you've finished photographing, you insert this medium into a computer device (thermographic developer/scanner) that permits you to store, view and print the images. Image quality is much higher than the previously-described system, and the original medium can be retained if desired for permanent archival storage.

Which sounds better?

 

[varjag]

24,000 ISO isn't remarkable in itself. I regularly shoot at 6400 ISO and get publishable shots, from there it's only a two-stop push.

I think you shoot at 6400 EI, not ISO. ISO standard requires certain amount of shadow detail and contrast available, and you don't have that in pushed film.

 

[XAos]

I'd feel a lot more warm and fuzzy if this were Fuji making the announcement instead of Krispy Kreme I mean Enron I mean Kodak. I have serious doubts as to a film technology surviving to market in the hands of the big yellow butcher. It will be a sad sad day when they take Tri-X down with them.

 

[HansDerHase]

There is an interesting read about photothermography over here.

The not so faint-hearted could check out some patents at freepatentsonline 😀.

For example advanced search for Assignee="Kodak" and Abstract="photothermic" and get a cup of coffee. Just let me know if you find THAT patent.

I wonder if some alternative process guy know how to do it yourself.. 😕

 

[Trius]

<snip>
Implications: Well, let's look at the workflow of today's dominant imaging system, digital photography. Your camera records images on an expensive, non-interchangeable sensor that becomes obsolete every few years, and then you record the images on expensive memory cards that are vulnerable to data corruption and accidental erasure.

The memory cards may not be bullet-proof, but they are not all that vulnerable to data corruption. And the odds of accidental erasure are generally lower than scratching or otherwise damaging a piece of film.

Note: I'm a film die-hard and think this film technology is pretty exciting. But IMO this piece of your argument doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[jlw]

The memory cards may not be bullet-proof, but they are not all that vulnerable to data corruption. And the odds of accidental erasure are generally lower than scratching or otherwise damaging a piece of film.

Note: I'm a film die-hard...

You need to spend more time with a digital camera. I get about one serious read error every two or three shooting sessions. Sometimes the card will read on a second try, and sometimes the files have gone forever.

I'm not sure the other comparison makes sense, since film damage usually happens in processing or subsequent handling, while accidental erasure usually happens during the heat of shooting. I haven't yet had this particular disaster happen to me, but several times I've come uncomfortably close to having an irretrievable "oops" moment...

 

[fgianni]

You need to spend more time with a digital camera. I get about one serious read error every two or three shooting sessions. Sometimes the card will read on a second try, and sometimes the files have gone forever.

Which cards are you using?

I never had a single frame lost in around 8000 shots taken with my Extreme iii cards (both SD and CF) with my 20D and RD-1

Or it may be a problem with your camera?

 

[Trius]

I'll admit my experience with digital is limited. I've never had a storage media failure, and everything I've read indicates that the media cards are very reliable. But that's just my impression.

As far as the other comparison goes, I wasn't trying to make an exact analogy; all analogies break down at some point, anyway. All that really matters is the end result. Erasure during the "heat of shooting" or scratching film while distracted or agitated ... what difference does it make how the diaster occurs?

Edit: Oh, and I don't "need" to spend more time with a digital camera ... unless you can supply me with an OM-1D or 35SP-D. 😉

 

[peterc]

You need to spend more time with a digital camera. I get about one serious read error every two or three shooting sessions.

Seems like you're having far too much problem with digital.
Over the years, I've used probably a dozen different digital cameras ranging from the early P&S cameras to the dSLR. The recording media has been SM, MS and CF cards. I've used them in conditions ranging from +35C to -30C and never had a single shot lost due to card corruption or failure. I even have a CF card that was dropped in wet snow (unknown to me at the time, it fell out of the camera bag when I was getting something ekse out). When I noticed it missing, I retraced my steps and found it. All the data was fine (once it dried out) and it's still working six months later.
I lost one roll of film years ago when it snapped while using a motordrive in extrme cold ... and even that would have been salvagable if I'd had a place to unload the camera.

Peter

 

[Stanton]

I don't know what this proves, but . . . I did lose 100 images on a CF card, while on an assignment. It was a card failure and nothing could retrieve the images. Luckily I was rotating between film in a Nikon F2 and a Konica Minolta Dimage A2. It scared me into buying a new Nikon F5, so I guess there is some saving grace to the experience. However, I have continued to use digital for the year after that experience with no failures at all. Dave

 

[aad]

Think about this-instead of trying to make a big money-loser into the new "core" (Kodak's digital line) someone decides to make the shrinking but profitable film line sexy again. All those film cameras out there...

 

[Dracotype]

If anyone is seriously interested in this, APUG has a thread on this with a form you can send to Kodak expressing your interest. It would be great if we could get a bunch of people to really show Kodak that this is a viable market. Less talk, more action.

Drew

 

[Zack]

I hope they release it in 120, then the grain might be ok at 8x10, if its just 35 i think 5x7 prints might be the limit.

 

[ch1]

The memory cards may not be bullet-proof, but they are not all that vulnerable to data corruption. And the odds of accidental erasure are generally lower than scratching or otherwise damaging a piece of film.

Note: I'm a film die-hard and think this film technology is pretty exciting. But IMO this piece of your argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Actually the initial image transfer is from the sensor to a memory card. Thereafter you download to some form of storage media such as CD or DVD (archival quality if you can afford it) or Hard Drive.

I am a film shooter who also stores digitally. Life is not an either/or choice unless you want it to be.

The K24000 sounds exciting. But this isn't a "push" so adjusting meter and aperture settings is going to be interesting. I guess you can extrapolate the aperture setting from your max speed setting. Or is it vice versa? 😕