New Kodak Pan X Aerial Roll Film Available

[Mark Sampson]

The aerial market is so specialized, and small, that anyone seriously interested should contact Kodak Aerial Imaging directly. Based on my past experience with them, I think the people there would be happy to help out.

[John Kasaian]

The aerial market is so specialized, and small, that anyone seriously interested should contact Kodak Aerial Imaging directly. Based on my past experience with them, I think the people there would be happy to help out.

When I got the K-17 I contacted Kodak Aerial Imaging and they are very helpful and really nice people. I hope they still have their jobs!

[cdholden]

Steve,
If you're setup to cut and find yourself with a roll of 5", I'd be interested in shooting a few 5x7s and maybe take a couple hundred sheets off your hands to offset your cost. I'm just a few hours west if you'd like to test drive an old Seneca 5x7. I get over that way every couple of months anyway so timing on a weekend could make it convenient.
Chris

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

All,

If Kodak still makes the film (and they reportedly still do, they could just as easily (probably) run a master roll for the annual LF/ULF film order. Anyone interested in this?

Cheers,

Steve

I would be interested in some 8x10 boxes if some one were to offer it, I do miss type 55, and having some of this film in a larger format would be the bee's knees.

[Steve Hamley]

Update coming soon I hope.

Thanks, Steve

[Kirk Gittings]

Let me set the record straight, I am not the Kodak dealer in that sentence.

Another point; I've never had any luck using this in 4X5. The 5 is correct and it's easy enough to cut, not so easy to load, but do-able, but the problem is in the developing. It's too small to hold itself in any of my jobo tanks, both 2500 and 3000 series. Nor will it go in the old Kodak stainless holders. It's a pita. 5X7 works perfect in the
JOBO.

I suspect though, like the old 4x5 pack films, they would develope fine shuffled in a tray or in BTZS tubes?

[ic-racer]

. This would yield 840 8x10 sheets at $2.43 per sheet,

You can get Foma 8x10 for $2.98 per sheet already cut and in a box. The price of those rolls for routine 8x10 use is outrageous.

[Mark Sampson]

Kirk, 2412 film is on a 4.0mil ESTAR base. 120 rollfilm is on a 4.7mil acetate base, while sheet film is coated onto 7mil ESTAR Thick base (this from EK's published data).
So I'd think your assumptions would be correct; but you might have to find a way to keep that thin film from moving around inside a regular sheetfilm holder.

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

Here's the final word:

HAS Imaging in Dayton Ohio has 99 rolls of 9-1/2" x 250 foot rolls of 3.9 mil 2412 Pan X. Some may be spoken for, but Ed is willing to sell some. The price is $600 per roll, and according to him, there will be no more made. You can buy a single roll. The film was purchased from Kodak a year ago and has been frozen since. He did not have an expiration date handy.

5-1/2" film can be had in the thinner base (Kodak pan X 3412), but there's a 10 roll minimum, and the rolls are 500 foot rolls at $835.43 each.

The phone number is 937 222-3856

The new/remaining film is only available through them unless someone else has some old stock.

Oh yes, the edges are NOT perforated.

Cheers,

Steve

[Tim Povlick]

Thanks for tracking this down Steve.

A question to anyone who knows, I checked the specs on this film and it has double the resolution of t-max 100 but grain is 9 versus 8 for tmax. Not sure what to make of that. I would assume objects will appear sharper with this film assuming good quality lenses in front, is this a correct assumption?

I tried some Polaroid 55 in my 8x10, taped the negative to a holder, then developed in Xtol 1:1. The results were alright but not as sharp as Tmax 100 (taken in same manner). This roll film is a lot of effort and I wonder if the effort is worth it over cut sheet film? Someone mentioned it's as good at TP w/o the headaches. That would be worth it to me.

Tim