Megabyte film ?

[doug]

Does anyone know please, if you can still get very fine grain black and white film in 16mm ? I think it was called some years ago Megabyte Film ? Very slow and high resolving.

[DonFito]

Gigabit film - http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/menu.htm

Don't know if it's still active. Simon Wyss over @ cinemtography.com had talked about it quite a bit.

[doug]

Donfito......Thanks ! Got that name wrong ! I'll check it out

[Mmechanic]

I’m here.

The last batch is from 2005, so a ten years old emulsion.
Not refrigerated
You can have 800 ft., 400 ft., 200 ft., and 100 ft. portions
on core or on daylight loading spool.

I’m selling it for ¼ of the original price.
That is Fr. 119.80 for 800 ft., Fr. 59.90 for 400 ft.,
Fr. 29.95 for 200 ft., Fr. 15 for 100 ft. The Swiss Franc is very exactly
one to one with the US Dollar today.

It is 16-0.3000, perf. one row, winding B, no signatures. Overall dry thickness of
Gigabitfilm is 0,068 mm. Processed with the original chemistry available
from Gigabitfilm of Kreuzau, Germany, any gamma from 0.4 to 1.3 feasible

Feel free to ask questions. I’d love to see a Gigabitfilm user community grow.
Gigabitfilm can be printed on itself with fantastic results. Due to a somewhat
lesser silver content compared to positive emulsions Gigabitfilm prints will not
produce as deep blacks in projection as traditional films. Special ultra-fine grain
positive films exist but would have to be prepared on request.

The very first exposures on Gigabitfilm were made with a Le Blay camera, then
we used an ARRIFLEX 35 BL II, and later a Paillard-Bolex H-16 S.

Which type of camera would you want to employ?

[doug]

Feeling rather foolish by "megabyte film" ... which wouldn't be very impressive !
Maybe to help future searchers another thread should be started with the correct name...

Anyway Simon, a big thanks for replying to my query and to my message last night.
I am indeed interested. I'm not at all familiar with this film so would be grateful to know the following:

Is it possible to process in normal chemistry for test purposes ? Presumably the special chemistry is desirable though ?
Is it at all possible to make a reversal original, ie. positive. Or does it need to be printed on to another film to achieve this.
When you say "signatures" what does this mean ?

My idea is to use it in a Bolex H16, possibly converted to a wide ratio like VariScope / Varispect. So it would be good to have a film without the manufacturer's latent numbers etc if possible. The reason I would like a positive image is that I have a project in mind which includes other positive film shots already taken.
I really feel now, I want to work on something in monochrome. And I think wide aspect ratio monochrome is a little explored medium. (Remember "Elephant Man"...)

So, Simon, I'd like to know whether you think any of this is feasible. In any case I would like to try some gigabit film.... got the name right !
And would welcome any suggestions from other forum members

[Mmechanic]

Gigabit film, Gigabitfilm in German, is a microfilm derivative. Its basic sensitivity is ISO 80 in daylight. Dipped in conventional baths harsh contrast images will result. Dr.-ing. chem. Detlef Ludwig, founder of Gigabitfilm, conceived a special developer formula by which half of the speed is retained at the maximum possible density. This sets the system apart from SPUR and others.

Almost any desired Gamma value is attainable meaning that soft originals can be had for further printing but also projection contrast (about 1.55:1) with reversal processing.

Due to the thin emulsion layer and less silver content compared to explicit positive stocks Gigabit film positive images cannot depict deep black shadows when projected.

I have printed Gigabit film negatives on Orwo PF 2 and Eastman 7302 with perfect results. What one sees going that way is the grain of the positive, never the original’s. Now, ultra fine grain positive stocks exist but we’d have to order such stock on request.

Gigabit film is not forgiving, not comparable to what everybody knows from usual kinematography (I like that old-fashioned word). Why?

Well, slightly out of focus simply looks unsharp. The film is like a mirror, it reflects the cinematographer’s work. Whether one uses an expensive apochromatic lens or a simple triplet, focus must be spot-on.

Exposure is much less critical. One can hardly overexpose the film. On the contrary, exposure should be for detail in the shadows. Everything towards higher lights can be left over to the film-developer combination. The highlights will be there, safely kept by the extremely fine grains. Gigabit film is the high-key lighting film.

With signatures I meant edge print codes. Excuse me for that mistake, I maltranslated from Signatur.

Gigabit film exists in 35mm as well, by the way. I used to shoot around my lab with an Eyemo, comparing the film to Fomapan R 100. I’d like to add one word here about the lab. It was an enterprise begun with little capital and a lot of boldness. Strictly black and white I wanted to offer other labs some competition. Black and white was treated so shabbily and not understood by many filmmakers that it was a must for me. Having produced shorts and done cinematography on commission, projected professionally, and worked with two labs in this country as machine developer, assembly editor, and projectionist I felt the need almost physically. It worked for a few years. Then came the decline.

Possibly I’ll start anew. I’ve kept my spirals, the Dixi-700 contact printer with Memochrome light control, measuring equipment, and more. Almost only archival techniques are left for a field of activity but that doesn’t preclude any front-end operations. In contrast to the past I’d do colour work, too. Plans are for E-6 and C-41. ECN-ECP processing most probably would be executed by Cinegrell, Zürich, 1½ hours of car travel away.

Please note everybody that the Gigabit film stock left with me is 2005-02 made and that it is on a thinner base. Overall dry thickness is 2.7 mils or 0,068 mm. Double lengths fit on spools and cores, so 800 ft. in a 400-ft. magazine for example.

I’ll gladly answer more questions.

S.

[HHJames]

I'm thinking about giving Gigabit film a try. Is it expensive? Seeing as it's so rare it's got to be pretty pricey right?

[doug]

I'm thinking about giving Gigabit film a try. Is it expensive? Seeing as it's so rare it's got to be pretty pricey right?

No it seems quite reasonable. Although outdated, but as it's black and white maybe not a problem. I've just ordered some from Simon, see his earlier post for prices. But I don't know how much the developer will cost... or the availability. I understand it's a special developer needed to bring out all the tones, otherwise the contrast will be too much. I'll probably try mine with normal developer first, or ideally reversal, but again I don't know how it will look

[DonFito]

Glad to see Simon responded to your inquiry.

Would love to see what comes out of your tests with the film, post some examples when you you get around to it.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Thanks Doug! Great to see your post, Simon!

Absolutely fascinating.

But I am confused by the 16-0.3000 long pitch spec. This is typically used for double row 2-perf 16mm film in high speed cameras. Or was it originally designated for single row contact printers? Will this pitch correctly transport in a Bolex 16mm cameras? Relative to the more common short pitch 16-0.2994 in used in the Bolex. Who originally manufactured the stock? Acetate or polyester base?

Do you have any scanned motion picture examples? Was this originally film designated for holography? Where can the developer be purchased?

[Mmechanic]

Alright, trying to cope with all the questions

To be frank, enough secretiveness has been in play for the past years, Mr. Ludwig is a chemist and I am a mechanical engineer and motion-picture lab technician. I took the initiative for 16mm and had six kilometers perforated by a third party. My considerations included the use of the stock for a variety of purposes such as image negative, intermediate, sound recording*, printing positive, for title/high contrast work, mattes and travelling mattes. Since I am a downright disputant of continuous printing short pitch perforation was never on the list.

The question about transport by a Bolex camera seems just somewhat strange to me but here is my answer: cameras are basically designed to transport film for the full nominal step. In fact, most claw mechanisms perform a longer stroke. The excess distance falls into the hole before the pull-down. Professional cameras for direct-sound shooting offer pitch control so that one can minimise the noise from the claw entering the perforation.

Perforation along both edges or only one has nothing to do with cameras, neither short and long pitch. The difference of 2 per mill is irrelevant. It only makes for best fit of two films around the drum of continuous printers. The omitting of one hole row firstly came with sound prints in the early 1930s. Image negatives of sound productions used to be perforated both edges for many years and actually still do. Paillard-Bolex offered exchange sprocket drums for the H cameras from the beginning on. Some cameras require 2-r. perforation, the Mitchell 16 for example. That is a professional camera although perhaps too much of a beast.

The stock is manufactured by Agfa-Gevaert. It has a polyester base. It has nothing to do with holography. I have one scanned example with a little problem: you can’t see the film because it makes itself invisible. I used Gigabit film as internegative with a duplication job in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghOvRbjYtqs#t=91, the long-jump pictures from a 1941 reversal original. What you can see is some uncertainty with the sharpness. I have solved this problem since then. YouTube delivers data from a 1080 scan of a step contact print (polyester-base Orwo PF 2) off the internegative. The Gigabit I have processed in spiral reel by hand, the prints by machine.

The developer is prepared and sold by Gigabit film, Ltd. Maybe that some day Mr. Ludwig will pass the formula to me, I don’t know.

I live on social welfare, am in a irksome situation. The administration thwarts me, they don’t know what to do with someone who can read and write.
________________________________

* Not advised

[aj]

Would it be same film as the 561 from Agfa?

[Mmechanic]

No, André, we’d then not have ISO 40 out of 80 and panchromasy. Agfa-Gevaert 561 as a non-sensitised stock had about ISO 10. Gigabitfilm is a modern panchromatically sensitised stock with an incorporated anti-halation measure (that is dissolved during development).

[Nicholas Kovats]

The Gigabit web doesn't appear to have been updated since 2004. Can the developer still be purchased? What quantity would be required to process 400ft? Estimated price?

[Mmechanic]

All that, my friends, must be asked Mr. Ludwig.

I have been a customer of Gigabitfilm, Ltd myself.
The only advance I have is that I had the chance to
collaborate with him while I had my lab.

The printing technique, Memochrome, and the
rest of it has grown on my crap.