During WW2, The UK used around 250,000 pigeons for various tasks. Some of which were used to converse with spys behind enemy lines. 32 of these pigeons received medals of the highest level for their service.
Cher Ami is one of the more famous prized pigeons. He delivered his message even tho he was shot, lost a leg and an eye and saved the lives of 200 soldiers (at least im pretty sure it was 200, i cant remember the exact number) that were stuck behind enemy lines and were being shot at even by their own people.
@@dhonkeypunchEveryone starving would eat a flying chicken nuggets. If I get stranded on a deserted island with someone weaker than me, if it is a man, I would eat him, if it is a woman then we start a family. That is just natures law 😂😂😂
As someone who used to be into the black and white photography in the 80s: yes, you can use the developer multiple times, but for each next film add some more development time (I've no idea how much exactly - I'm sure I used way different mixtures, in my case it was like +30 seconds for each next film).
Hey! Just a head’s up, you aren’t even getting the best possible results here, you’re using film with much too course a grain. You do mention that however you also seem to maybe be under the impression that you can’t get film better suited for the job. You can, actually, look for repackaged microfilm. Adox CMS 20 II is a common one, however you can get an even more fine grain film called MZ-3 from a Ukrainian company called Astrum. It’s ISO 1-3, and has insane contrast. If developed properly it will probably out-resolve your microscope. If you’re interested in seeing how far you can take this, I suggest checking it out!
FPP sells MZ-3 and other low ISO films yes, but The Thought Emporium is based in Canada, so shipping is expensive, on top of the already high markup FPP has. For reference, 60M of MZ-3 direct from Astrum can probably be had for US$150-175. It’s even better if you order a ton of film at once like I did in May, around 1.5k ft of various film stocks in 35mm, 46mm (127) and 61.5mm (120) in bulk rolls.
0:56 two distinct neural pathways in my brain that have not been used in years have just been reinforced with the strength of titanium. you have committed a crime.
Another microform (the most general term) is the microcard, which, like microfiche has a grid of several page images (and it is similar in size and content to the microfiche), but it is an opaque, positive image, like a glossy photographic print, rather than a transparency. It's more or less what you would get by printing a negative microfiche on ordinary black-and-white photographic print paper. They were never as popular as microfilm (the earliest) or microfiche, and it could be a bit of a pain to find a reader. Nowadays I suppose a high-resolution flatbed scanner could be used to read them.
@@alfepalfe Where I am Ilford and it's sub brand Kentmere are pretty much the king of budget for me, Kentmere is 50p cheaper than Foma and HP5 and co aren't much more.
Old photography rule - f/8 and be there. Expand on this a bit: if you're in a hurry f/8 will usually be sharp enough if you focus well. Your glass may be its sharpest a bit more open or a bit more stopped down than this. Fast glass is typically at its best a stop or two down from max (largest, widest, smallest number) aperture. So like a f/2.8 lens might be happiest at f/4 or perhaps f/5.6. Kit glass, cheap glass, etc you'll usually end up around f/8. Much beyond that and diffraction becomes a problem quite fast.
An old rule of thumb is the middle aperture tends to be sharpest, so for instance on my big 300mm f/5.6 it should be sharpest around f/11. the f/8 and be there is genuinely pretty accurate for mid speed lenses though as their middle aperture usually is exactly f/8.
@@xander1052 it might be sharpest then, but you've lost so much light and gained so much diffraction it's not going to be all that useful at the end of the day, especially for something like this at the highest end of what the system can resolve. When you're trying to squeak out max resolution, you need good light, good focus, and your lens to be at its best aperture for the task at hand, which may not always be the "sharpest" - it's probably good enough. There's focal length and depth of field considerations to be made as well. It's not as simple as f/8 and be there, but that will definitely get you close enough for most stuff. For specialty situations like this, there's a lot more to it. It's why string is useful for fixed focus cameras. It's "calibrated" so that you could hold it from the right distance to guarantee critical focus. The rest was basically decided for you in hardware, other than the lighting conditions.
I second this; wide-open aperture will blur the image a bit. Sharpest image will be somewhere between maximum and minimum aperture (minimum will be blurred by diffraction). I usually use f/8 by default if image sharpness is a priority.
For this application you can compute the diffraction resolution and make sure that your aperture is not too small. I suspect at the resolution they're targeting even f/8 may be pushing it.
For the stuff he's photographing too he'll get a lot more contrast printing multiple times and overlaying the prints, Ensure the printer is set to maximum darkness. Applied science came up with a process for it for when he was doing similar things.
The intro makes it seem like this technology was primarily used for espionage but in reality it was in use many much more mundane sounding fields like archiving and eventually the photolithography that is the backbone of this digital age. Kudos for the creativity of the intro.
technology connections has a video about 'at home' film development. iirc, he said you can reuse the developer a handful of times, but after so many uses the developer starts to work more slowly as the active ingredirnt becomes spent.
@@illiteratebeef All rodinal really is one-shot. Once mixed it oxidizes in about a day. Many other b&w chemicals are however reuseable, I currently use Kodak D-76, my current batch is at 10 films and works fine with time compensation. But yeah. RTFM indeed, most chemicals have this own data sheets that say how they're to be used.
11:00 I'm pretty sure that you are not supposed to use smallest aperture for things like this - lenses are usually sharpest somewhere at the middle of the aperture range. IIRC, smallest aperture get into the range of where diffraction becomes an issue - this is also why pinhole cameras have limited sharpness, as the light is always diffracted at their crazy small aperture sizes
@@nate_0723exactly. More generally depending on variables.. f7.1-f11. Some fixed focal length lenses can be almost as sharp at their wide open settings. $$$$$ though 😂
In theory, wide open is best, as larger aperture = higher resolution, but as lenses aren't generally near ideal, a stop or two down may get maximum results.
@@UncleKennysPlace wide open would be the best from a diffraction perspective, but very few lenses are optimally corrected for geometric aberrations wide open (usually really, really expensive, really fast, ones). You also get into the issue of making perfect focus that much more critical, as DoF gets much smaller.
I worked as a radiographer from 2006 to 2018. I developed film in 5 gallon tanks by hand every day. Never wore gloves, but if you have an exposed cuticle or hang nail. You'll know.
xray film all the way to 2018?? wowza! our company helped get a lot of imaging centers on a budget to switch to CR and (later) DX. TFT and CsI scintillator cost went down a lot; i cant imagine any reason to keep using film unless the crusty old doc is resistant to change 🤠 especially for ortho u dont need the highest DQE panels on the market
@WhileTrueCode industrial radiography, a lot of the time I was in remote areas and since the scanners and plates are expensive and can be ruined by lots of dust or bouncing down 2 tracks and dirt roads and you're hours away from the office, it is more economical to send radiographers with tanks and lead screens/film. I did some CR when I was working in the city close to the office. Even today at the facility I work at, I'll occasionally require the radiographers to use high emulsion film where CR just doesn't capture the sensitivity for whatever reason, but they use 95+% CR here. DR is still running into limitations at a facility with high temperature piping well above the ground. You can drop and break a film or CR cassette, or melt/warp the screen without it being the end of the world. 14x17 DR cassettes on the other hand are very costly.
@@kodiererg hey cool! thanks for the follow-up, that is really interesting. yeah that sounds like a harsh environment so i absolutely see your point. pretty much all the products i worked with were for medical (which presumes a nice clean environment). we had a potential NDT contract but our panels werent designed for the high kVp and long exposures they used (lol the cutest little xray generator... ran off DeWalt drill batteries). cheers!
In fact, it's possible to create the microdots without a camera, as long as you have photographic film (which you can purchase at any shop). What they would do is create, essentially, a pinhole camera with normal household materials (carboard boxes etc) and use it in a dark room, flip the lights on for a second or two, and then cut the part of the film that had photographed the document and put it eg. under a stamp. All these materials for the pinhole camera are easily disposed of, and consist of materials that are not suspicious. No government officials would find anything suspicious in that apartment or on the spy himself, even if they searched.
@@radeklew1 The problem with a minicamera, as depicted in the video, is that if they search you and find it on you, it's highly suspicious due to the highly specialized nature of the camera, which no normal person owns, and is very obviously used for creating these microfilms.
Hello! I've done a lot of developing, mostly colour c41 though so the chemistry is a little different. A few tips I have : Make sure everything very dry before putting it into the dark bag. Humidity and water make the film super sticky and hard to wind onto the spools Developer is fine to reuse! Every two or three uses, just increase your development time, I've used mine up to 15 times before swapping it out. To avoid any splotches it's helpful to do a clean water rinse between each stage of development, this also helps the chemistry last a few more uses. Particularly with colour development, temperature control is very important! I do all my development in a water bath held at the appropriate temperatures, this varies for each stage of development. Lastly, make sure you squeegee your film after developing, it avoids any water spots and it's also super satisfying. Love the channel!
As for dryness, yes with plastic reels. Steel reels can be loaded soaking wet but cheap steel reels tend to be terrible and nice steel reels (Hewes brand) are expensive. Developer is usually fine for approximately 10 films per liter of stock solution. He is however using "blazinal" a varaint of rodinal which is a one-shot developer. As for temperature control, modern b&w film is remarkably tolerant of abuse. Far too hot and they may be a bit overdeveloped but other than that it should be fine. If I recall correctly the problem of reticulation requires something crazy like a 50°C temperature change during development with modern film. As for water spots, several methods are in use. Squeegees are fine but you need to be very careful that they're completely clean as any particles on it can scratch the film along the length. Personally I just wash the film using the ilford was method, then fill the tank up with destilled water and just 2 or 3 drops of wetting agent before hanging to dry. That usually gets it spotless.
Photolab technician for over 10 years here. Yes the chemicals can be reused several, several, several times (the loss of its strength is minimal). But it will become saturated by silver at a point, and you'll start seeing a difference in contrast in the developed film as it does. For plain B&W with no shades of grey, you may want to overdevelop it (the 1st part of the process) for a little more time to get stronger blacks and whites. DO NOT THROW IT DOWN THE DRAIN. Sediment, decantation and reduction... And recover all that precious silver.
I'll second this. I'm a photographer who worked for a commercial shooter before digital. He had a darkroom and the developer was in this big stainless tank, and was over ten years old! We would replenish it occasionally. He claimed that new developer wouldn't have that "magic" smooth look until it had been replenished a few times. There was likely hundreds of dollars worth of silver sloshing around in the sludge at the bottom :)
For anyone wanting more tiny science like this, Applied Science has an excellent video on his lithography process using a large format camera on specialized but inexpensive litho film. The video is Antique 4x5 camera creates 20 micron photolithography masks. His process is even sharper
In the early 1970's I was employed by Microform Data Systems. The product was ultra-microfilm readers and media. This was on the cusp of the rise of digital information systems. The media was strips of 35mm film with six frames. Each frame held hundreds of pages of text reduced in size by a factor of 200 times. About ten strips fit into a cassette that allowed any strip to be fed into the reader. A large installation was purchased by General Telephone (LA) for their directory information operators. An array of readers was connected to a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP8 mini-computer. The computer held the programming to control the readers to select the correct strip, frame and exact page location on the frame for a given name input by the operator instead of thumbing through a mound of telephone directories. I worked there for three years but even then it was obvious to me that any such system would be replaced by entirely digital data systems. Even so. microfilm is still one of the most durable types of information storage.
Photon sieves are just plain awesome! You're making them on film, but one important advantage is where I thought you were going when you mentioned etch resists: You can etch the transparent holes as actual holes in a metal membrane and not have to worry about the transparency of the substrates, making them useful over a very broad range of wavelengths. Not sure if you are going to go into the randomization of dot patterns or over-sizing holes, but I'm going to love the upcoming vids!
if you found a way to consistently mass produce these for absolutely no reason besides masochism... you could probably fit an entire public library within a single large table or a massive suit case.
@@coxfuture yea but you'd need something digital to read it, where as this technically only requires a "magnifying" glass and the disregard of one's own eyesight lasting more than 2 years.
@@coxfuture And what is the shelf life of the charge in the floating gates of those transistors? 2 years? 4 years? Even good flash memory isn't going to save Lil' Timmy's Kindergarten photos until he graduates 6th grade without some read and write cycles. Even most spinning drives (I know about M-Discs) only last a decade in offline storage. Film needs a climate controlled space and it's good for a lifetime or more.
@@coxfuture The nice thing about storing data on physical media is that the data doesn't get lost if you forget to connect stuff to power for several years. I'm not saying microfilm will last eons (for that stone is obviously the best medium) but it'll certainly be more durable than an SD card.
This video is absolutely fantastic! The way you briefly went from explaining film technology, to demonstrating how it gets used to shrink down images, and then incorporating Holographic Optical Elements! I actually didn't know you could do that at the scale where a standard negative film (and not a special microfilm, holographic film, etc) is able to capture. I love how you demonstrated so many examples of it, too! There seems to be not many videos going over this with so much to show, except for Huygens Optics incredible videos. Some things I would add is besides Fuji's HR microfilms, there are a lot of other silver-based materials you can use such as ADOX CMS 20 is still sold, their HR-50 seems like a good candidate as well, Rollei RPX 25, and you could probably investigate many holographic plates that are sold. Some of these microfilms can store up to 800 cycles/mm or more, but holographic materials can easily achieve 2000, 5000, and some close to 10000. The only problem is they're for the express purpose of recording interference patterns of coherent light, not normal optical images which start to become diffraction limited far before those figures (in Vis). Another fun thing was the Lippmann process where a special ultra-fine emulsion is used to photograph objects, but using a mirrored surface behind it the standing wave patterns of light interfering with itself _in the depth of the emulsion_ which effectively records the wavelengths of light; the color. It's a dyeless color process done through the light interfering with itself! And it was made in the 1890s and you can do it yourself as well! It's too cool! So, anyway, maybe I'm just "uhm ackshually"-ing the part about needing to immediately jump to something that isn't silver based lol. Especially with how difficult it might be to source a good photoresist. There's a lot of possibilities in silver halides! To get the sharpest image you need to balance your lens aberrations being curtailed by stopping the lens down to a smaller aperture versus diffraction which increases as the aperture gets smaller. Some well very well-corrected lenses can do this just a stop or two below wide-open, but for many lenses 5.6, 8, or 11 will be the sweet spots for reducing aberrations. Regarding your development setup, it's really nice! Glass seems to store the chemicals a lot better without needing to resort to crazy things like topping the bottle off with butane or something. And I just tried developing without gloves for the first time a few days ago... yeah I totally agree with you there, my fingers had such a weird smell on them the rest of the day. For developer, highly-diluted stuff is almost always considered "one-shot". You toss it after you use it. Like when people dilute Rodinal 100 times. But with dilutions that are a lot less you totally can, I just don't know the details about how to do replenishing "right". I might be overthinking it though, usually you just give it more time. I'm so excited to see what you do next!! This was so awesome!!
@@thethoughtemporium Of course!! The Lippmann process is truly mindblowing. There's a guy named Nick Brandreth who shows some example photos he's made with it and some recipes. Jon Hilty is another who does a bunch of "alternative" processes and he also has recipes for them. They're worth checking out as resources! Also many holography resources have good information on Lippmann because it shares the space, both holography and the Lippmann process require ultra fine emulsions because they capture interference patterns! In general, making your own emulsions is an infinitely deep science on its own, considering what you can do by varying temperatures, times, layers, which halides, concentrations, sensitizers, etc. For making these microdots, CMS 20 is probably all you need but I imagine you can play with a whole bunch of variables and cook up your own film with cool properties! You don't even need a big plate camera, you could just use a microscope slide and load that in your camera in the darkroom lol
The famous "pen camera" was custom made for a Soviet general selling secrets for money back in the 1950s. The analysts studying blurry images of documents said to the case officer "Can't you get the man a better camera?" Hysterical laughter ensued
I accidently started the video without sound and I was able to follow what was going on and being explained. A mark of a good narrative crafter/ editor. Was thinking it was a kind of artistic silent cold open.
Just a few pedantic comments. Daguerrotypes were indeed made on metal plates, but it was polished copper that was then coated with silver. Solid silver plates would be way too expensive. The halide in your film would be silver bromide, iodide and chloride were used back in the day when collodion emulsions and POP prints were widespread. The development process doesn't darken silver crystals, the photon of light creates what's known as development center within the structure of silver bromide crystal, developer reduces the bromide to metalic silver, the grains altered by light are converted first. If you'd left the film in the developer for long enough, all of the halide would turn into silver. Have fun! The traditional photography spawned literally hundreds of processes, it's a bottomless pit for both time and money 😅
Hi! I do a lot of black and white development. When it comes to development with Rodinal (blazinal is just another name for Rodinal) the easiest way is a 1:100 dilution, for an hour, with some slight agitation at the beginning and then at 30 minutes. This will develop near perfectly nearly every time. You also dont need to use stop bath, as a water wash is perfectly adequate if you fix immediately. Blazinal is a one shot developer and should not be reused, though at your dilutions you may get away with it. You can however reuse fixer basically until it stops working, to test if its good you can just through your film leader into the fixer and see how long it takes to go clear, if its too long just make a new batch. I hope some of this info helps
Some things to note, if you're shooting for absolute sharpness as they are, rodinal and especially semi-stand development is not ideal as they enhance the grain. I also develop a decent amount and this is very noticeable with some films.
Cool stuff, thanks! Do not use the smallest aperture if you want maximum sharpness, around F8 - F11 should give better sharpness on this objective. Use a roll of film and take the same image at different F-stops to find the sharpest one. You will find the sharpest to be in the middle somewhere, not the smallest for sure.
My mother was a microfiche tech for a local township where I grew up and it truly is insane how much you can fit on one sheet! I believe her record was something like 2000 building blueprints on one 8.5x11 sheet or something around that!
Dude, developing the film brought me back to my community college days! I got extremely good at putting film onto a roll, and remember doing 7 rolls of B&W film at once, split between two canisters and that was a heck of a challenge but somehow I pulled it off. Film photography is absolutely incredible since it has the ability to capture things in a way that you can't get with digital in my opinion.
As long as the same information is transmitted to the viewer, I can't see how the method of recording the information provided by the reflected photons in question should make any difference.
One thing I learned back in High School. Decades back, we used a Crown Graphic Press Camera with a 4 by 5 inch cut film negative film with an ASA or ISO of 400. Development was in a completely dark room with 3 trays in a shallow sink filled with temperature controlled water and the three trays from left to right, held the Developer, Stop Bath, Fixer, then rinse bath. The stop bath is usually a mild acid like citrus or white vinegar. The fixing agent was called Hypo and was usually ammonium thiosulfate. This removed the silver halide to remove light sensitivity. After the fixer came a water rinse bath, running water over each negative. I spent many evenings after school developing 6 different pieces of film, standing in absolute darkness turning each 4x5 pieces of film by hand. We didn't have a daylight tank. At least when printing the image on photo paper you could do it with, a red light on, as the paper wasn't sensitive to red light.
Yes, the developer can be reused, but each time it is used, it accumulates some bromide in the solution. This can behave in weird ways with the next batch of film, and if you're using it to send classified messages, you would probably not reuse the solution. But, as I think about it, the bromide actually could give you better clarity after it reaches its plateau level because it could reduce grain in the image because it decreases the film speed as its level increases, up to a full stop. As bromide increases, though, the images become darker because more light is needed.
If your optics has known aberration problems, you can reduce the optics problems by reducing the aperture (and, of course, correspondingly increasing the exposure time). The smaller the aperture, the more of the peripheral parts of the objective's light path are effectively blocked, meaning optical imperfections in these parts will not matter for the final result.
That works, but has a limit. The aperture's edges are making a diffraction pattern, and when the aperture is small enough, the diffraction begins to dominate, and smaller apertures actually reduce sharpness and contrast. For typical lenses, the sweet spot is around f/8 to f/11.
If you want something even finer-trained then PanF+, Adox CMS 20 II is as fine as consumer films come. The exact sharpness apparently exceeds testing equipment. Kodak 2383 is an internegative or interpositive, I forget which, that I shot at 1.5 ISO and it's the only stock I've ever used that I can't see grain clumps on with either a grain focuser or a high-res macro lens and live view enlargement. Also, the Series E 50mm is a very good lens, but if you want to go crazy with some even better options for this project, I could make a few suggestions.
I sent him an E-mail right after this aired on Nebula with a few tips, among them recommending Adox CMS 20 II. He responded saying that he had ordered a few rolls as well at the Adotech developer to try out. Also love your channel and "All about film" series, keep up the great work.
13:53 blazinal (rodinal dupe) might give sharp results but also very grainy images. Ascorbic acid based developers like caffenol or xtol can give softer grain, but diluting xtol with water can make the images sharper, yet with finer grain than achieved with blazinal / rodinal. I recommend combining this with a low iso fine grain film like cms 20 II or MZ3.
We used LITHO FILM. Developer can be reused, but extend development based on a table. Developer can also be REPLENISHED which means adding clean developer to your mix. Also a fin thing. Save your FIXER. you can recover actual silver when it gets depleted. Drop a penny in your fixer and the silver will coat the copper.
It sucks because im allergic to the developers, i couldn't even go into the dark room in my high school graphic design class, im really glad digital photography is a thing now lol
A couple notes: Nikon is OK but a sharper lens is Zeiss and they are on Leica cameras (rangefinder focus). The sharpest focus will be 2-3 stops down (smaller aperture) from wide open. Use a tripod and a shutter release. You can get more contrast by "pushing" the film from 1 to 8 stops by increasing the developer time and reducing the shutter speed. Experiment. Developer can be reused with diminishing results but each batch can develop 6 rolls. Sodium bicarbonate will help neutralize it for disposal. Fixer is reusable but is light sensitive, and you should be able to find replenisher to add to make it last longer. You can wash it out of the canister, a few flushes in the toilet will do. Soak 30 sec, flush, repeat. Foto-flo will decrease surface tension and make your film dry without spots. A few drops of Dawn will work, added to your rinse toilet. You might find a continuous tone film (a type of litho film) that has no grain. Also backlit film will be much less sharp than print with reflected light. Your copy lights should be aimed at the far side of the image at 45 degrees. Questions, feel free.
This is sort of missing the point, but if you want to secretly transfer files across borders, take a picture of something with a digital camera, say a jumping dog. Then zip up your secret documents and pictures into a single file. Using old DOS commands you can save the secret stuff into your jumping dog image. The image file size is bigger, but if someone simply views the file that you put back into your camera SD card,they will only see the jumping dog. At the far end, use an unzipper program on the picture file and you can recover all your secret stuff intact. Often misdirection is better than encryption.
@agalah408, my second search on this subject led me to an organisation about Linux questions that also had Windows command line instructions (and Mac). Cool and interesting.
Small caution about PANF: It notoriously has poor image retention properties, be sure to develop images taken on it within a month or so. I'd be curious to see what Delta 100 pull-processed at 50 looks like, though that usually mostly affects contrast, not accentuate. XP2 Super may be interesting, since it's a C41-process film that relies on dye to make the final image. FPP Dracula (aka Svema FN-64) is a wonderfully sharp and high-contrast film with a very clear base. For the lens: while shooting wide-open has its benefits, most lenses are not at their sharpest wide open. If sharpness is paramount, using a lens a stop or two down from wide open is advisable.
A few things that may be useful you for: 1) your pages are not light tight, use transparency paper and stack multiple to get it light tight or at least better contrast 2) you may be able to use a pin-hole setup. I'm really not sure about how this might work or the size of the pin hole required but it should provide infinite depth of field and remove the optical issues, other than diffraction of the pin hole is too small, or you get to close to the edge of the hole (vignetting). 3) I'm not sure if it would help but consider experimenting with polarized light and filters
The overall project planning in these is just top notch, I adore how you’ve been able to turn the hundreds of prerequisite infrastructure steps for larger projects into videos with other interesting bits - because every stage of the infrastructure is interesting and has consequences in its own right! Can’t wait to see what you do next
That lever pull to move the film... I remember not pulling enough because because i was scare to break it. The result was nightmare fuel overlapping pictures.
1:04 were doing meme archaeology with this one. If anyone is interested, I think my gramps has an old dusty textbook that talks about "the game" somewhere
14:50 You can definitely reuse developers a few times; how many probably depends on the type of developers and some are probably not recommended to reuse at all. Some brands probably even has recommendations for how many times it can be safely reused and how much you need to change the development time for repeaded uses in the documentation. You are of course loosing some potency as you use it and for absolutely best quality, if you're developing art or fashion photography intended for large print you'd probably use a fresh developer. But I know press photographers when they still had to use film photography had a lot of tricks to save money (since they take an awful lot of pictures and print them at fairly small scale on crappy paper anyway they don't care about the best possible quality), I think they did stuff like "refreshing" the developer by adding cheaper chemicals to the used developer. I don't remember exactly (as it's more than 20 years since I learned about it but never tried to do it myself), but I think part of the problem with old used developer is that it starts to get saturated by dissolved silver from the films, so I think some of the refreshing tricks were adding some chemicals that made the silver fall out of solution and cover the bottom of the container and then you could pour the top off into a clean container and add some other chemical to replace the "spent" reactants in the developer. I think it works because most of the developer is fairly cheap chemicals, but the expensive stuff is sort of catalysts that isn't used up. I think you also could develop at least black and white film with some very cheap and common house hold chemicals too without any fancy additives and catalysts that real developers have, but it's much slower and harder to predict how well it works. And with those home made chemicals it's not at all worth it to reuse it. Press photographers also had other even more dirty tricks to speed up the development a lot. Apparently you can develop film super quickly (like in a seconds rather than minutes) by basically developing it with very hot chemicals (way outside the recommended temps). And if you were really in a hurry to get the photos sent you could also do a very fast stop bath and forgo the fix and rinse and just slap the wet film into the scanner (or some telefax like thing they used before digital film scanners) send the pictures to the headquarters. And then the original negatives would go bad afterwards because of the insufficient fixing, and you would have to disassemble the scanner and clean it; but you'd get the photos first. But I guess it's a good chance you'd also destroy the negatives in the process if you go a little too hot and/or too long. The press photographer who was my photography teacher 20 years ago, also told stories about how he also had been in the woods in the middle of winter taking pictures of a train accident (this was after digital film scanners were standard in press photography but before digital cameras were good enough in the early 90s), he had a laptop (or rather luggable computer), film scanner and sattelite phone with him, but he had to develop the film first and he was several kilometers away from any houses; so he developed the film by putting the developer can between his legs inside his sleeping bag to keep it above freezing and just guesstimated that if the normal indoor developer time was 10 minutes it would probably be okay at close to freezing after 30-40 minutes. It actually worked; I guess unlike with hot developer where the chemistry is super fast and the margin of error is very narrow; with too cold developer you have a lot of margin of error as long as you don't get actual ice crystals in the developer tank.
if you're doing black and white with blazinol, just stand develop them. using a 1/100 or higher ratio you can just let it sit for like an hour and you get really solid results with virtually no effort. many photographers, including myself use this technique.
I worked for Lockheed and Rolls-Royce at Stennis Space Center from 2004-2012, and on my faculty was the same "resolving power test target" painted on the concrete. Except, it was about 200 feet wide. Used to calibrate satellite optics.
The highest resolving photographic film in the world is Adox CMS 20. As a 35mm film, it out resolves any lense ever made at 800 lines per millimeter, resulting in a theoretical resolution of 500MP. According to Adox you can print a 35mm piece of film up to 2.5m without rendering any grain. The trick is that it's a relatively slow film at around ISO 20 if using their dedicated developer. In the case of creating microdots, that's not an issue though. Whilst Ilford Pan F 50 is a great film and fine grained, there are definitely even finer grained films available. Regarding Blazenol, it's basically a rebranded Rodinal which is a very old recipe (130+ years old). Whilst it renders a sharp image by accuntuating the edge of the silver halide crystals, it has the downside of enhancing the grain. I'm not sure whether this results in more readable text, but two other developers which could be tried are Ilford ID 11 (or the equavalent Kodak D76) as well as Kodak XTOL. XTOL is a developer which disolves the grain somewhat, resulting in a smoother image than with Blazenol but might be a little less sharp around the edges of the text. ID 11 should be a middle ground between the two.
10:53 to maximize the contrast, you can stack 4-5 printouts with the same content on top of each other. This way, you block more light with the black parts. I recommend blocking out everything else out with black paper, too. To avoid glow
A page-shaped microdot with 100 signatures of all the people who actually touched and worked on the Magellan Venus radar mapper, was glued inside the spacecraft. My signature was among them. The mission was super-successful, and in the end, the re-entered the craft and it burned up in Venus upper atmosphere. So because of This One Simple (photo-reduction) Trick, me and a small cadre of others get to say that our signatures burned up at Venus. O_O
Something to remember is this is the same guy who is trying to set up an array of neurons to play doom, compared to that nonsense film is absolutely cheap
Blazinal is a rebranded version of Rodinal (probably the oldest and most ubiquitous developer still used today) and its generally not a good developer to use more than once, its sometimes called a "one-shot" developer meaning you use it once and toss it. I personally use Kodak Xtol which is excellent for re-use and has a great price-per-roll especially when using the "replenishment" method. However, for your use I would not recomment Xtol because its a "solvent developer" meaning it dissolves the sharp edges of the silver-halide grains and generally smooths out the grain at the cost of some sharpness, rodinal is probably the right choice for what you're using it for because it has exceptionally high sharpness, but you do have the side effect of very strong grain, but like you said you can get finer grain with lower-iso films.
I would like to learn more about the CIA's actual process. For example, did the spies write it on a piece of paper and then shred it? where did they store development equipment? where did they store the film?
To be clear, you can TOTALLY check each exposure without burning the whole film roll. Get a dark bag. Not a Dark ROOM but a bag. No light. Not even red safe light. Put the camera in the bag with a pair of scissors and a developer kit (reel or boxes if you prefer). Advance the camera few more times to make sure you dont cut photos in half and then open it up and cut. Take the exposed film and put it in the light proof developer canister and refeed the remaining film into the camera. Close it up and advance another 2 or 3 times to make sure you have fresh film ready to go. You loose a few exposures but thats better than the whole reel.
I feel like you guys would love to see things like the microbumps used in silicon-to-silicon chip stacking. Intel Foveros, of which I have been a principal semiconductor physicist. We use a bump pitch of 36 microns and can fit 828 per square milimeter on a 22nm FFL process node. The next-gen one brings back the infamous Intel 14nm in an FFL version and fits more, but I can't say how many just yet.
Another couple suggestions. Most commercial lenses are sharpest around f/8 or f/5.6. Opening up or stopping down from there will typically lose sharpness of edges. Also, you might want to track down a “process camera”, basically a specialized camera meant to copy things to microfilm or for use in printing. They’re fairly cheap because they aren’t useful for art photography, and lot of schools and libraries had them and are getting rid of them. Also, you should check out the Adox CMS films, which are basically high contrast copy film. The Film Photography Project also has “Hi-Fi” film, which was originally meant for optical sound recording and would do very well for your purposes. Also also, depending of what you’re photographing, use a red filter on the lens to boost contrast. It’ll knock off about three stops of exposure, but with panchromatic film it’ll render the image in almost pure black or white.
OH! Centrifuge the used developer! - When I was younger in HS doing photography, I would often wonder... wait 'if I'm agitating it and there silver, I always wanted to see if centrifuging it down would yield and microscopic particles at all. Does the photographic/developer process loosen anything up? (I figured, you're a curious nerd like myself, AND you have the equipment - so the idea might have a chance at nerd sniping you and well... maybe I'd get an answer - Thanks for all your great videos!)
I’m so excited for the diffraction-video! I’ve worked with diffraction gratings for lasers a lot, but I’ve never understood how it actually works, and you explain these topics so fucking good, so I’m looking forward to learn more. I really hope you look into shooting light or lasers through your diffraction-filters as well, as that could make some really interesting patterns judging by your examples shown in this video.
I work in Utilities mapping. 20 years ago when I started we were digitizing hand drawn maps. And the guys that drew the maps were still there and one of them showed me how small and neatly they could write words on maps. It was amazing. I guess it just takes a lot of practice.
You could use Laser Lithography to achieve a similar result, and potentially also making it with a conductive layer to work as a circuit to store data on almost any object.
With black and white film, the silver halide Chrystals get reduced to metallic silver in the developing process. The fixing removes all the remaining halidechrytals that remain. What you are left with is basically little dots of silver that make up your image. The developer is in some cases reusable, check the manufacturer's data sheet (there's always a data sheet). There are special high resolution film / developer combinations. I would suggest to look into that. Adox CMS 20 pro and so on. (as others have already commended). Resolution on the film is a product of: Developer - Film - Optic - Steadiness When taking an image with your consumer photo optic, and you want to achieve maximum resolution, you should use f,5.6 - f8. An aperture smaller will decrease your resolution, and a more open one will also decrease the resolution. Reusing the developer could decrease image quality. The developer dilution will also affect your image resolution in many cases. Try to get dedicated "high resolution" films and developers, use your lens at its sweet spot and keep your camera very steady. All the best!
Few things to note, as scattered around the comments and comments of comments: - Use aperture F8 for sharper image as rule of thumb. Depends on the glass that you have. - You can reuse developer few time, but it affects the developing time, as some of the developer is already used, you might want to extend the time a bit - I didn't see comments nor video commenting anything on controlling the temperature, though on b/w I was taught "so that chemicals feels wet, not warm nor cool", so measuring by feel, not by some thermometer. On color chemistry it's waaaaay more important. Also on color you need to be a lot more exact with your clock than shown on video :D Thanks again!
14:29 Since generally people do their film processing in the same area they do their photo processing they are going to have running water within a few feet and that's more than enough for the drop or two you are likely to deal with... Plus the smell of the sulphur complexes on your hands is how we identify our own.
About reusing developer: reusability depends on developer and usually you can reuse it if you add some time to usual development time. Main problem is that developers in working concentrations will oxidize and change their properties over time (not like in minutes or hours, but in course of weeks), so you will less predictable results, more you reuse developer and more you store it in its working concentration.
- Gather your materials: LSD or other desired psychedelic substance, distilled water, a small container with a dropper, and blank sheets of paper or perforated blotter paper - Dissolve the LSD or psychedelic substance in distilled water in the small container using the dropper. Make sure to measure the amount accurately for desired dosage strength - Lay out the blank sheets of paper or perforated blotter paper on a clean, flat surface - Using the dropper, carefully drop small amounts of the LSD solution onto the paper in evenly spaced dots. Be sure to let the dots dry completely before moving or storing them - Once the dots are dry, they are ready to be consumed. Simply peel off a dot and ingest it orally for a microdose of the psychedelic substance. Store any remaining dots in a cool, dry place for future use
All sorts of neat stuff can be done with microprinting. LED-based slide projection is still a viable way to get information to a group of people in a small and rugged package with long battery life or easy recharging. Additionally, there was Bokode from the MIT Media Lab - a multiply useful system to read microprinted barcode in a scene using a camera. Not only could you read every single exposed Bokode tag in an image from a single picture, you could use the system as a sort of motion control system by arranging the lens on the controller such that only a section of a "large" (in relative terms) barcode was exposed. If the receiver knew what was on the barcode, the position and angle of the controller could be determined by which section of the code was visible. But, TBH, I am more interested in a .50USD LED projector than can be used to display things like instructional and repair manuals. A lot of the "appropriate technology" uplift folks would benefit from being able to send teaching materials for a class in a small and durable package. Paper works too, obviously, but training materials are generally bulky and expensive at the classroom scale.
@@MaxNippard Same. I loved the motion control concept - we could have interactive displays nearly everywhere that you could use a personal controller on that cost less than USD.50 to make.
Imagine if the agent was never told where to look on the object but only told that there were some microdots on it. Worse than finding a needle in a haystack 😰
Biology as a hobby has shifted my understanding of what a "cheap" hobby is. With Bio everything is hundreds or thousands of dollars. So to me 15 bucks for film is dirt cheap comparatively.
During WW2, The UK used around 250,000 pigeons for various tasks. Some of which were used to converse with spys behind enemy lines. 32 of these pigeons received medals of the highest level for their service.
Cher Ami is one of the more famous prized pigeons. He delivered his message even tho he was shot, lost a leg and an eye and saved the lives of 200 soldiers (at least im pretty sure it was 200, i cant remember the exact number) that were stuck behind enemy lines and were being shot at even by their own people.
a Lot of them wound up as succulent meals
@@dhonkeypunch Not much of a retirement scheme.
@@dhonkeypunchEveryone starving would eat a flying chicken nuggets. If I get stranded on a deserted island with someone weaker than me, if it is a man, I would eat him, if it is a woman then we start a family. That is just natures law 😂😂😂
btw. they'd already used pigeons with cams attached during WW I.
Trying to read the small print in any banking contract be like
that still legal in your country? we made a law for minimal size - easy fix
How is your comment 2 days old on 1 hour old video?
@@kieranclarke8899 I travelled into the past with a time machine, dont tell the CIA.
@@kieranclarke8899 youtube membership has early access to videos
@@kieranclarke8899early access for paid subscribers?
As someone who used to be into the black and white photography in the 80s: yes, you can use the developer multiple times, but for each next film add some more development time (I've no idea how much exactly - I'm sure I used way different mixtures, in my case it was like +30 seconds for each next film).
(usually I used it to develop up to 5 film rolls)
Now I'm asking myself what happens if you would let it develop for too long?
@@PaulusFlorage ruins the image. Not in a cool sorta artistic way, it will just look like crap.
@@theterribleanimator1793 But crap can be artistic? Ever heard of _Artist's Shit?_
Blazinal is as far as I can tell Rodinal which is a one-shot developer.
Hey! Just a head’s up, you aren’t even getting the best possible results here, you’re using film with much too course a grain. You do mention that however you also seem to maybe be under the impression that you can’t get film better suited for the job. You can, actually, look for repackaged microfilm. Adox CMS 20 II is a common one, however you can get an even more fine grain film called MZ-3 from a Ukrainian company called Astrum. It’s ISO 1-3, and has insane contrast. If developed properly it will probably out-resolve your microscope. If you’re interested in seeing how far you can take this, I suggest checking it out!
Sent you a message regarding how you can get some of this film.
there are other ulta low iso film easily available in the US, from film photography project or wolfen, don't need to track down obscure ukranian film
I'm from Ukraine and I can find mentions of MZ-3, but cannot find a place to buy it :(
FPP sells MZ-3 and other low ISO films yes, but The Thought Emporium is based in Canada, so shipping is expensive, on top of the already high markup FPP has. For reference, 60M of MZ-3 direct from Astrum can probably be had for US$150-175. It’s even better if you order a ton of film at once like I did in May, around 1.5k ft of various film stocks in 35mm, 46mm (127) and 61.5mm (120) in bulk rolls.
@sensorer Look up Astrum LTD, they have a contact form on their site. Unfortunately can’t share the email here because UA-cam will auto delete it
0:56 two distinct neural pathways in my brain that have not been used in years have just been reinforced with the strength of titanium. you have committed a crime.
I JUST LOST THE GAME!
😂😂😂
This should be illegal
fucking EVIL
@@terrariapro147What game? I forgot about any game😊
Pedantic correction: rolls of microform material are called microfilm and individual sheets are called microfiche.
Using the correct terminology prevents miscommunication and errors in understanding, so such corrections are appreciated.
Microfilm is also used in discrete strips, not just rolls. See my comment above.
Interesting. Clears up some confusion I've had for years.
Another microform (the most general term) is the microcard, which, like microfiche has a grid of several page images (and it is similar in size and content to the microfiche), but it is an opaque, positive image, like a glossy photographic print, rather than a transparency. It's more or less what you would get by printing a negative microfiche on ordinary black-and-white photographic print paper. They were never as popular as microfilm (the earliest) or microfiche, and it could be a bit of a pain to find a reader. Nowadays I suppose a high-resolution flatbed scanner could be used to read them.
@@avsystem3142 Yeah, UA-cam comments are not that neatly organized.
Making me lose THE GAME is CRAZZZZYYYY WORKKKK!!! I haven't thought about it in years!!!!😭😭😭😭 You broke the streak!!! 00:58
Who would have thought that was OK on UA-cam lol I lost the game again
> "film is cheap"
> proceeds to show Ilford
LMAO
:Ye: Didn´t expected ilford look like this he must had made the development 100 percent right
Depends on where you live, sure, not *cheap* but a lot cheaper than Kodak at least where I live.
Though I mostly use bulk rolled fomapan.
he's definitely a beginner...
@@alfepalfe Where I am Ilford and it's sub brand Kentmere are pretty much the king of budget for me, Kentmere is 50p cheaper than Foma and HP5 and co aren't much more.
FYI, DMEM is like CAD$80+ for 500ml, compared to that "film is cheap".
Old photography rule - f/8 and be there.
Expand on this a bit: if you're in a hurry f/8 will usually be sharp enough if you focus well. Your glass may be its sharpest a bit more open or a bit more stopped down than this. Fast glass is typically at its best a stop or two down from max (largest, widest, smallest number) aperture. So like a f/2.8 lens might be happiest at f/4 or perhaps f/5.6. Kit glass, cheap glass, etc you'll usually end up around f/8. Much beyond that and diffraction becomes a problem quite fast.
An old rule of thumb is the middle aperture tends to be sharpest, so for instance on my big 300mm f/5.6 it should be sharpest around f/11. the f/8 and be there is genuinely pretty accurate for mid speed lenses though as their middle aperture usually is exactly f/8.
@@xander1052 it might be sharpest then, but you've lost so much light and gained so much diffraction it's not going to be all that useful at the end of the day, especially for something like this at the highest end of what the system can resolve. When you're trying to squeak out max resolution, you need good light, good focus, and your lens to be at its best aperture for the task at hand, which may not always be the "sharpest" - it's probably good enough. There's focal length and depth of field considerations to be made as well. It's not as simple as f/8 and be there, but that will definitely get you close enough for most stuff. For specialty situations like this, there's a lot more to it. It's why string is useful for fixed focus cameras. It's "calibrated" so that you could hold it from the right distance to guarantee critical focus. The rest was basically decided for you in hardware, other than the lighting conditions.
I second this; wide-open aperture will blur the image a bit. Sharpest image will be somewhere between maximum and minimum aperture (minimum will be blurred by diffraction).
I usually use f/8 by default if image sharpness is a priority.
For this application you can compute the diffraction resolution and make sure that your aperture is not too small. I suspect at the resolution they're targeting even f/8 may be pushing it.
For the stuff he's photographing too he'll get a lot more contrast printing multiple times and overlaying the prints, Ensure the printer is set to maximum darkness. Applied science came up with a process for it for when he was doing similar things.
The intro makes it seem like this technology was primarily used for espionage but in reality it was in use many much more mundane sounding fields like archiving and eventually the photolithography that is the backbone of this digital age. Kudos for the creativity of the intro.
technology connections has a video about 'at home' film development. iirc, he said you can reuse the developer a handful of times, but after so many uses the developer starts to work more slowly as the active ingredirnt becomes spent.
Alec is awesome
Blazinal is as far as I can tell just rodinal. Which is intended for single-use.
He said you can reuse color chemicals multiple times. He specifically uses semi-stand rodinal which is one-shot.
The best way to find out is to RTFM.
@@illiteratebeef All rodinal really is one-shot. Once mixed it oxidizes in about a day. Many other b&w chemicals are however reuseable, I currently use Kodak D-76, my current batch is at 10 films and works fine with time compensation.
But yeah. RTFM indeed, most chemicals have this own data sheets that say how they're to be used.
I forgot what video I was on, and thought that "developer" here was referring to a programming job... was pretty confused there for a bit :p
0:57 2 Years and of all places i lose the game while watching The Thought Emporium. Great video as always!
i've lost the game too many times in the past few months
The game just ruined my day.
I lost it twice today after a 2 year streak.
It's been about a fucking decade for me.... 😂
11:00 I'm pretty sure that you are not supposed to use smallest aperture for things like this - lenses are usually sharpest somewhere at the middle of the aperture range. IIRC, smallest aperture get into the range of where diffraction becomes an issue - this is also why pinhole cameras have limited sharpness, as the light is always diffracted at their crazy small aperture sizes
I was doing some IR photography with lenses designed for visible light and suffered that problem too. Optimal was still quite small aperture
As a rule of thumb, f/8 is usually the sweet spot for most lenses.
@@nate_0723exactly. More generally depending on variables.. f7.1-f11.
Some fixed focal length lenses can be almost as sharp at their wide open settings. $$$$$ though 😂
In theory, wide open is best, as larger aperture = higher resolution, but as lenses aren't generally near ideal, a stop or two down may get maximum results.
@@UncleKennysPlace wide open would be the best from a diffraction perspective, but very few lenses are optimally corrected for geometric aberrations wide open (usually really, really expensive, really fast, ones). You also get into the issue of making perfect focus that much more critical, as DoF gets much smaller.
I worked as a radiographer from 2006 to 2018. I developed film in 5 gallon tanks by hand every day. Never wore gloves, but if you have an exposed cuticle or hang nail. You'll know.
xray film all the way to 2018?? wowza! our company helped get a lot of imaging centers on a budget to switch to CR and (later) DX. TFT and CsI scintillator cost went down a lot; i cant imagine any reason to keep using film unless the crusty old doc is resistant to change 🤠 especially for ortho u dont need the highest DQE panels on the market
Indeed
@WhileTrueCode industrial radiography, a lot of the time I was in remote areas and since the scanners and plates are expensive and can be ruined by lots of dust or bouncing down 2 tracks and dirt roads and you're hours away from the office, it is more economical to send radiographers with tanks and lead screens/film. I did some CR when I was working in the city close to the office.
Even today at the facility I work at, I'll occasionally require the radiographers to use high emulsion film where CR just doesn't capture the sensitivity for whatever reason, but they use 95+% CR here. DR is still running into limitations at a facility with high temperature piping well above the ground. You can drop and break a film or CR cassette, or melt/warp the screen without it being the end of the world. 14x17 DR cassettes on the other hand are very costly.
@@kodiererg hey cool! thanks for the follow-up, that is really interesting. yeah that sounds like a harsh environment so i absolutely see your point. pretty much all the products i worked with were for medical (which presumes a nice clean environment). we had a potential NDT contract but our panels werent designed for the high kVp and long exposures they used (lol the cutest little xray generator... ran off DeWalt drill batteries). cheers!
@@WhileTrueCode film has infinite resolution
In fact, it's possible to create the microdots without a camera, as long as you have photographic film (which you can purchase at any shop). What they would do is create, essentially, a pinhole camera with normal household materials (carboard boxes etc) and use it in a dark room, flip the lights on for a second or two, and then cut the part of the film that had photographed the document and put it eg. under a stamp. All these materials for the pinhole camera are easily disposed of, and consist of materials that are not suspicious. No government officials would find anything suspicious in that apartment or on the spy himself, even if they searched.
You can do this without a camera, the first step is to make a camera! :)
@@radeklew1
The problem with a minicamera, as depicted in the video, is that if they search you and find it on you, it's highly suspicious due to the highly specialized nature of the camera, which no normal person owns, and is very obviously used for creating these microfilms.
@@DjVortex-w they're referring to the fact that the box with a hole is a very primitive version of a camera
@@EphemeralPseudonym
So? It's very clear that when I say "camera" in my original comment, I'm referring to the devices shown in the video.
@@DjVortex-w yeah they're making a joke
it's a rude joke but I don't think they realize it
2:07 I was bracing myself for the vpn sponsor
EDIT: IT WAS FORESHADOWING!!
10:24 On that note, it ends right here
same. I thought it was about to hit but when it didn't I let my guard down. The trickster...
@@genericascanbe3728 I love sponsorblock!!
Lol who's actually using these VPNs. I bet they collect everything about you, tor is tons better
was thinking the same thing lol
Hello! I've done a lot of developing, mostly colour c41 though so the chemistry is a little different. A few tips I have :
Make sure everything very dry before putting it into the dark bag. Humidity and water make the film super sticky and hard to wind onto the spools
Developer is fine to reuse! Every two or three uses, just increase your development time, I've used mine up to 15 times before swapping it out.
To avoid any splotches it's helpful to do a clean water rinse between each stage of development, this also helps the chemistry last a few more uses.
Particularly with colour development, temperature control is very important! I do all my development in a water bath held at the appropriate temperatures, this varies for each stage of development.
Lastly, make sure you squeegee your film after developing, it avoids any water spots and it's also super satisfying.
Love the channel!
As for dryness, yes with plastic reels. Steel reels can be loaded soaking wet but cheap steel reels tend to be terrible and nice steel reels (Hewes brand) are expensive.
Developer is usually fine for approximately 10 films per liter of stock solution. He is however using "blazinal" a varaint of rodinal which is a one-shot developer.
As for temperature control, modern b&w film is remarkably tolerant of abuse. Far too hot and they may be a bit overdeveloped but other than that it should be fine. If I recall correctly the problem of reticulation requires something crazy like a 50°C temperature change during development with modern film.
As for water spots, several methods are in use. Squeegees are fine but you need to be very careful that they're completely clean as any particles on it can scratch the film along the length.
Personally I just wash the film using the ilford was method, then fill the tank up with destilled water and just 2 or 3 drops of wetting agent before hanging to dry. That usually gets it spotless.
Photolab technician for over 10 years here. Yes the chemicals can be reused several, several, several times (the loss of its strength is minimal). But it will become saturated by silver at a point, and you'll start seeing a difference in contrast in the developed film as it does. For plain B&W with no shades of grey, you may want to overdevelop it (the 1st part of the process) for a little more time to get stronger blacks and whites.
DO NOT THROW IT DOWN THE DRAIN. Sediment, decantation and reduction... And recover all that precious silver.
I'll second this. I'm a photographer who worked for a commercial shooter before digital. He had a darkroom and the developer was in this big stainless tank, and was over ten years old! We would replenish it occasionally. He claimed that new developer wouldn't have that "magic" smooth look until it had been replenished a few times. There was likely hundreds of dollars worth of silver sloshing around in the sludge at the bottom :)
For anyone wanting more tiny science like this, Applied Science has an excellent video on his lithography process using a large format camera on specialized but inexpensive litho film. The video is Antique 4x5 camera creates 20 micron photolithography masks. His process is even sharper
In the early 1970's I was employed by Microform Data Systems. The product was ultra-microfilm readers and media. This was on the cusp of the rise of digital information systems. The media was strips of 35mm film with six frames. Each frame held hundreds of pages of text reduced in size by a factor of 200 times. About ten strips fit into a cassette that allowed any strip to be fed into the reader. A large installation was purchased by General Telephone (LA) for their directory information operators. An array of readers was connected to a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP8 mini-computer. The computer held the programming to control the readers to select the correct strip, frame and exact page location on the frame for a given name input by the operator instead of thumbing through a mound of telephone directories. I worked there for three years but even then it was obvious to me that any such system would be replaced by entirely digital data systems. Even so. microfilm is still one of the most durable types of information storage.
W display picture.
I was about to skip forward 30 seconds at 2:05 ngl thought you were about to drop the nord vpn ad
Photon sieves are just plain awesome!
You're making them on film, but one important advantage is where I thought you were going when you mentioned etch resists: You can etch the transparent holes as actual holes in a metal membrane and not have to worry about the transparency of the substrates, making them useful over a very broad range of wavelengths. Not sure if you are going to go into the randomization of dot patterns or over-sizing holes, but I'm going to love the upcoming vids!
i knew what the qr code was going to be,,, yet i still scanned it
Rick roll?
@@bactrosaurusdefinetely
@@bactrosaurusit’s actually a cheesecake recipe.
I scanned it thinking it would be a Rick Roll but what was there was actually better
@@VAL9THOUthere's a QR code on the letter that he shows us in the beginning
if you found a way to consistently mass produce these for absolutely no reason besides masochism... you could probably fit an entire public library within a single large table or a massive suit case.
I mean, if you filled a soda can up with microSD cards you'd have 5 petabytes, which is probably enough for every book in every library ever
@@coxfuture yea but you'd need something digital to read it, where as this technically only requires a "magnifying" glass and the disregard of one's own eyesight lasting more than 2 years.
@@coxfuture And what is the shelf life of the charge in the floating gates of those transistors? 2 years? 4 years? Even good flash memory isn't going to save Lil' Timmy's Kindergarten photos until he graduates 6th grade without some read and write cycles. Even most spinning drives (I know about M-Discs) only last a decade in offline storage. Film needs a climate controlled space and it's good for a lifetime or more.
@@coxfuture The nice thing about storing data on physical media is that the data doesn't get lost if you forget to connect stuff to power for several years. I'm not saying microfilm will last eons (for that stone is obviously the best medium) but it'll certainly be more durable than an SD card.
Wikipedia on microdots.
2:00 I started mashing fast forward because it sounded like you were about to go into a Nord VPN ad.
Ahh, yep. Nord ad came later.
This video is absolutely fantastic! The way you briefly went from explaining film technology, to demonstrating how it gets used to shrink down images, and then incorporating Holographic Optical Elements! I actually didn't know you could do that at the scale where a standard negative film (and not a special microfilm, holographic film, etc) is able to capture. I love how you demonstrated so many examples of it, too! There seems to be not many videos going over this with so much to show, except for Huygens Optics incredible videos.
Some things I would add is besides Fuji's HR microfilms, there are a lot of other silver-based materials you can use such as ADOX CMS 20 is still sold, their HR-50 seems like a good candidate as well, Rollei RPX 25, and you could probably investigate many holographic plates that are sold.
Some of these microfilms can store up to 800 cycles/mm or more, but holographic materials can easily achieve 2000, 5000, and some close to 10000. The only problem is they're for the express purpose of recording interference patterns of coherent light, not normal optical images which start to become diffraction limited far before those figures (in Vis).
Another fun thing was the Lippmann process where a special ultra-fine emulsion is used to photograph objects, but using a mirrored surface behind it the standing wave patterns of light interfering with itself _in the depth of the emulsion_ which effectively records the wavelengths of light; the color. It's a dyeless color process done through the light interfering with itself! And it was made in the 1890s and you can do it yourself as well! It's too cool!
So, anyway, maybe I'm just "uhm ackshually"-ing the part about needing to immediately jump to something that isn't silver based lol. Especially with how difficult it might be to source a good photoresist. There's a lot of possibilities in silver halides!
To get the sharpest image you need to balance your lens aberrations being curtailed by stopping the lens down to a smaller aperture versus diffraction which increases as the aperture gets smaller. Some well very well-corrected lenses can do this just a stop or two below wide-open, but for many lenses 5.6, 8, or 11 will be the sweet spots for reducing aberrations.
Regarding your development setup, it's really nice! Glass seems to store the chemicals a lot better without needing to resort to crazy things like topping the bottle off with butane or something. And I just tried developing without gloves for the first time a few days ago... yeah I totally agree with you there, my fingers had such a weird smell on them the rest of the day.
For developer, highly-diluted stuff is almost always considered "one-shot". You toss it after you use it. Like when people dilute Rodinal 100 times. But with dilutions that are a lot less you totally can, I just don't know the details about how to do replenishing "right". I might be overthinking it though, usually you just give it more time.
I'm so excited to see what you do next!! This was so awesome!!
I hadn't heard of the lippmann process before. Definitely gonna have to try it out!! Thanks for the advice :)
@@thethoughtemporium Of course!!
The Lippmann process is truly mindblowing. There's a guy named Nick Brandreth who shows some example photos he's made with it and some recipes. Jon Hilty is another who does a bunch of "alternative" processes and he also has recipes for them. They're worth checking out as resources! Also many holography resources have good information on Lippmann because it shares the space, both holography and the Lippmann process require ultra fine emulsions because they capture interference patterns!
In general, making your own emulsions is an infinitely deep science on its own, considering what you can do by varying temperatures, times, layers, which halides, concentrations, sensitizers, etc. For making these microdots, CMS 20 is probably all you need but I imagine you can play with a whole bunch of variables and cook up your own film with cool properties!
You don't even need a big plate camera, you could just use a microscope slide and load that in your camera in the darkroom lol
These are very different to the microdots I messed with in the nineties.
closer to the windowpanes
But they still came on paper and let ya "receive" some "transmissions".
Can't find it at all anymore :( very sad. Everything is a horrible fake RC. People these days don't even know what L really is.
@@Excelcior58 Your comment is a real L
@@Excelcior5860s Lucy was the true shit
Thanks!
0:57: Man.... That was uncalled for..
that was a crime... i hadn't lost the game in like 3 years
@@ulisesmarcano2444unfortunately for me I typically only get 3 months before someone gets me.
Same... there should be a rule specifically excepting occurrences in public posts from triggering a loss!
RAHHHH
The famous "pen camera" was custom made for a Soviet general selling secrets for money back in the 1950s. The analysts studying blurry images of documents said to the case officer "Can't you get the man a better camera?" Hysterical laughter ensued
I accidently started the video without sound and I was able to follow what was going on and being explained. A mark of a good narrative crafter/ editor. Was thinking it was a kind of artistic silent cold open.
Just a few pedantic comments.
Daguerrotypes were indeed made on metal plates, but it was polished copper that was then coated with silver. Solid silver plates would be way too expensive.
The halide in your film would be silver bromide, iodide and chloride were used back in the day when collodion emulsions and POP prints were widespread.
The development process doesn't darken silver crystals, the photon of light creates what's known as development center within the structure of silver bromide crystal, developer reduces the bromide to metalic silver, the grains altered by light are converted first. If you'd left the film in the developer for long enough, all of the halide would turn into silver.
Have fun! The traditional photography spawned literally hundreds of processes, it's a bottomless pit for both time and money 😅
I'm so happy your family found this video and uploaded it after your tragic accident!
Hi! I do a lot of black and white development. When it comes to development with Rodinal (blazinal is just another name for Rodinal) the easiest way is a 1:100 dilution, for an hour, with some slight agitation at the beginning and then at 30 minutes. This will develop near perfectly nearly every time. You also dont need to use stop bath, as a water wash is perfectly adequate if you fix immediately. Blazinal is a one shot developer and should not be reused, though at your dilutions you may get away with it. You can however reuse fixer basically until it stops working, to test if its good you can just through your film leader into the fixer and see how long it takes to go clear, if its too long just make a new batch. I hope some of this info helps
Some things to note, if you're shooting for absolute sharpness as they are, rodinal and especially semi-stand development is not ideal as they enhance the grain. I also develop a decent amount and this is very noticeable with some films.
Never expected to lose “The Game” watching one of your videos 🤣
🫰 is this the game you are talking about?
Hahah facts it has me stunned it’s been so long since I’ve lost “the game”
5:54 "film is cheap" :-D :-D :-D Film has become an expensive hobby.
I jumped when I heard that
Cool stuff, thanks! Do not use the smallest aperture if you want maximum sharpness, around F8 - F11 should give better sharpness on this objective. Use a roll of film and take the same image at different F-stops to find the sharpest one. You will find the sharpest to be in the middle somewhere, not the smallest for sure.
My mother was a microfiche tech for a local township where I grew up and it truly is insane how much you can fit on one sheet! I believe her record was something like 2000 building blueprints on one 8.5x11 sheet or something around that!
Dude, developing the film brought me back to my community college days! I got extremely good at putting film onto a roll, and remember doing 7 rolls of B&W film at once, split between two canisters and that was a heck of a challenge but somehow I pulled it off. Film photography is absolutely incredible since it has the ability to capture things in a way that you can't get with digital in my opinion.
As long as the same information is transmitted to the viewer, I can't see how the method of recording the information provided by the reflected photons in question should make any difference.
One thing I learned back in High School.
Decades back, we used a Crown Graphic Press Camera with a 4 by 5 inch cut film negative film with an ASA or ISO of 400.
Development was in a completely dark room with 3 trays in a shallow sink filled with temperature controlled water and the three trays from left to right, held the Developer, Stop Bath, Fixer, then rinse bath.
The stop bath is usually a mild acid like citrus or white vinegar. The fixing agent was called Hypo and was usually ammonium thiosulfate. This removed the silver halide to remove light sensitivity. After the fixer came a water rinse bath, running water over each negative.
I spent many evenings after school developing 6 different pieces of film, standing in absolute darkness turning each 4x5 pieces of film by hand. We didn't have a daylight tank.
At least when printing the image on photo paper you could do it with, a red light on, as the paper wasn't sensitive to red light.
I should have used this technique to make my formula sheets in university. I could have fit all my assignments on it and everything!
Yes, the developer can be reused, but each time it is used, it accumulates some bromide in the solution. This can behave in weird ways with the next batch of film, and if you're using it to send classified messages, you would probably not reuse the solution. But, as I think about it, the bromide actually could give you better clarity after it reaches its plateau level because it could reduce grain in the image because it decreases the film speed as its level increases, up to a full stop. As bromide increases, though, the images become darker because more light is needed.
If your optics has known aberration problems, you can reduce the optics problems by reducing the aperture (and, of course, correspondingly increasing the exposure time). The smaller the aperture, the more of the peripheral parts of the objective's light path are effectively blocked, meaning optical imperfections in these parts will not matter for the final result.
That works, but has a limit. The aperture's edges are making a diffraction pattern, and when the aperture is small enough, the diffraction begins to dominate, and smaller apertures actually reduce sharpness and contrast. For typical lenses, the sweet spot is around f/8 to f/11.
@@wellscampbell9858 Makes sense, but the aperture used in this video was the 'maximum available'. It probably shouldn't have been.
„Film is cheap😂 comedian of the Century born right there
If you want something even finer-trained then PanF+, Adox CMS 20 II is as fine as consumer films come. The exact sharpness apparently exceeds testing equipment. Kodak 2383 is an internegative or interpositive, I forget which, that I shot at 1.5 ISO and it's the only stock I've ever used that I can't see grain clumps on with either a grain focuser or a high-res macro lens and live view enlargement. Also, the Series E 50mm is a very good lens, but if you want to go crazy with some even better options for this project, I could make a few suggestions.
Cms20 ii pro is incredible
I sent him an E-mail right after this aired on Nebula with a few tips, among them recommending Adox CMS 20 II.
He responded saying that he had ordered a few rolls as well at the Adotech developer to try out.
Also love your channel and "All about film" series, keep up the great work.
@@alfepalfe Thank you! It's always good to hear that because those take a LOT of work.
13:53 blazinal (rodinal dupe) might give sharp results but also very grainy images. Ascorbic acid based developers like caffenol or xtol can give softer grain, but diluting xtol with water can make the images sharper, yet with finer grain than achieved with blazinal / rodinal. I recommend combining this with a low iso fine grain film like cms 20 II or MZ3.
Totally doing this with the kids! This'll take their clubhouse messages to the next level 🎉
We used LITHO FILM. Developer can be reused, but extend development based on a table. Developer can also be REPLENISHED which means adding clean developer to your mix. Also a fin thing. Save your FIXER. you can recover actual silver when it gets depleted. Drop a penny in your fixer and the silver will coat the copper.
It sucks because im allergic to the developers, i couldn't even go into the dark room in my high school graphic design class, im really glad digital photography is a thing now lol
A couple notes: Nikon is OK but a sharper lens is Zeiss and they are on Leica cameras (rangefinder focus). The sharpest focus will be 2-3 stops down (smaller aperture) from wide open. Use a tripod and a shutter release. You can get more contrast by "pushing" the film from 1 to 8 stops by increasing the developer time and reducing the shutter speed. Experiment. Developer can be reused with diminishing results but each batch can develop 6 rolls. Sodium bicarbonate will help neutralize it for disposal. Fixer is reusable but is light sensitive, and you should be able to find replenisher to add to make it last longer. You can wash it out of the canister, a few flushes in the toilet will do. Soak 30 sec, flush, repeat. Foto-flo will decrease surface tension and make your film dry without spots. A few drops of Dawn will work, added to your rinse toilet. You might find a continuous tone film (a type of litho film) that has no grain. Also backlit film will be much less sharp than print with reflected light. Your copy lights should be aimed at the far side of the image at 45 degrees. Questions, feel free.
This is sort of missing the point, but if you want to secretly transfer files across borders, take a picture of something with a digital camera, say a jumping dog. Then zip up your secret documents and pictures into a single file. Using old DOS commands you can save the secret stuff into your jumping dog image. The image file size is bigger, but if someone simply views the file that you put back into your camera SD card,they will only see the jumping dog. At the far end, use an unzipper program on the picture file and you can recover all your secret stuff intact. Often misdirection is better than encryption.
@agalah408, my second search on this subject led me to an organisation about Linux questions that also had Windows command line instructions (and Mac). Cool and interesting.
9:08 Annnnd! There it is! We all knew it *had* to be coming!
Small caution about PANF: It notoriously has poor image retention properties, be sure to develop images taken on it within a month or so.
I'd be curious to see what Delta 100 pull-processed at 50 looks like, though that usually mostly affects contrast, not accentuate. XP2 Super may be interesting, since it's a C41-process film that relies on dye to make the final image. FPP Dracula (aka Svema FN-64) is a wonderfully sharp and high-contrast film with a very clear base.
For the lens: while shooting wide-open has its benefits, most lenses are not at their sharpest wide open. If sharpness is paramount, using a lens a stop or two down from wide open is advisable.
A few things that may be useful you for:
1) your pages are not light tight, use transparency paper and stack multiple to get it light tight or at least better contrast
2) you may be able to use a pin-hole setup. I'm really not sure about how this might work or the size of the pin hole required but it should provide infinite depth of field and remove the optical issues, other than diffraction of the pin hole is too small, or you get to close to the edge of the hole (vignetting).
3) I'm not sure if it would help but consider experimenting with polarized light and filters
The overall project planning in these is just top notch, I adore how you’ve been able to turn the hundreds of prerequisite infrastructure steps for larger projects into videos with other interesting bits - because every stage of the infrastructure is interesting and has consequences in its own right! Can’t wait to see what you do next
That lever pull to move the film... I remember not pulling enough because because i was scare to break it. The result was nightmare fuel overlapping pictures.
1:04 were doing meme archaeology with this one.
If anyone is interested, I think my gramps has an old dusty textbook that talks about "the game" somewhere
14:50 You can definitely reuse developers a few times; how many probably depends on the type of developers and some are probably not recommended to reuse at all. Some brands probably even has recommendations for how many times it can be safely reused and how much you need to change the development time for repeaded uses in the documentation. You are of course loosing some potency as you use it and for absolutely best quality, if you're developing art or fashion photography intended for large print you'd probably use a fresh developer. But I know press photographers when they still had to use film photography had a lot of tricks to save money (since they take an awful lot of pictures and print them at fairly small scale on crappy paper anyway they don't care about the best possible quality), I think they did stuff like "refreshing" the developer by adding cheaper chemicals to the used developer. I don't remember exactly (as it's more than 20 years since I learned about it but never tried to do it myself), but I think part of the problem with old used developer is that it starts to get saturated by dissolved silver from the films, so I think some of the refreshing tricks were adding some chemicals that made the silver fall out of solution and cover the bottom of the container and then you could pour the top off into a clean container and add some other chemical to replace the "spent" reactants in the developer. I think it works because most of the developer is fairly cheap chemicals, but the expensive stuff is sort of catalysts that isn't used up.
I think you also could develop at least black and white film with some very cheap and common house hold chemicals too without any fancy additives and catalysts that real developers have, but it's much slower and harder to predict how well it works. And with those home made chemicals it's not at all worth it to reuse it.
Press photographers also had other even more dirty tricks to speed up the development a lot. Apparently you can develop film super quickly (like in a seconds rather than minutes) by basically developing it with very hot chemicals (way outside the recommended temps). And if you were really in a hurry to get the photos sent you could also do a very fast stop bath and forgo the fix and rinse and just slap the wet film into the scanner (or some telefax like thing they used before digital film scanners) send the pictures to the headquarters. And then the original negatives would go bad afterwards because of the insufficient fixing, and you would have to disassemble the scanner and clean it; but you'd get the photos first. But I guess it's a good chance you'd also destroy the negatives in the process if you go a little too hot and/or too long.
The press photographer who was my photography teacher 20 years ago, also told stories about how he also had been in the woods in the middle of winter taking pictures of a train accident (this was after digital film scanners were standard in press photography but before digital cameras were good enough in the early 90s), he had a laptop (or rather luggable computer), film scanner and sattelite phone with him, but he had to develop the film first and he was several kilometers away from any houses; so he developed the film by putting the developer can between his legs inside his sleeping bag to keep it above freezing and just guesstimated that if the normal indoor developer time was 10 minutes it would probably be okay at close to freezing after 30-40 minutes. It actually worked; I guess unlike with hot developer where the chemistry is super fast and the margin of error is very narrow; with too cold developer you have a lot of margin of error as long as you don't get actual ice crystals in the developer tank.
professor: you can make a cheat sheet if it fits on one piece of paper
me:
I just noticed how good this ad read was. A VPN sponsorship that actually detailed exactly what it does without any misleading promotion. Nice!
Seriously? This is exactly the topic that I was digging into in the last months and my boy here simply recreates this awesome little technology. 👏👏
I should add *digging into for fun and interest
if you're doing black and white with blazinol, just stand develop them. using a 1/100 or higher ratio you can just let it sit for like an hour and you get really solid results with virtually no effort. many photographers, including myself use this technique.
I worked for Lockheed and Rolls-Royce at Stennis Space Center from 2004-2012, and on my faculty was the same "resolving power test target" painted on the concrete. Except, it was about 200 feet wide. Used to calibrate satellite optics.
The highest resolving photographic film in the world is Adox CMS 20. As a 35mm film, it out resolves any lense ever made at 800 lines per millimeter, resulting in a theoretical resolution of 500MP. According to Adox you can print a 35mm piece of film up to 2.5m without rendering any grain. The trick is that it's a relatively slow film at around ISO 20 if using their dedicated developer. In the case of creating microdots, that's not an issue though. Whilst Ilford Pan F 50 is a great film and fine grained, there are definitely even finer grained films available. Regarding Blazenol, it's basically a rebranded Rodinal which is a very old recipe (130+ years old). Whilst it renders a sharp image by accuntuating the edge of the silver halide crystals, it has the downside of enhancing the grain. I'm not sure whether this results in more readable text, but two other developers which could be tried are Ilford ID 11 (or the equavalent Kodak D76) as well as Kodak XTOL. XTOL is a developer which disolves the grain somewhat, resulting in a smoother image than with Blazenol but might be a little less sharp around the edges of the text. ID 11 should be a middle ground between the two.
10:53 to maximize the contrast, you can stack 4-5 printouts with the same content on top of each other. This way, you block more light with the black parts. I recommend blocking out everything else out with black paper, too. To avoid glow
A page-shaped microdot with 100 signatures of all the people who actually touched and worked on the Magellan Venus radar mapper, was glued inside the spacecraft. My signature was among them. The mission was super-successful, and in the end, the re-entered the craft and it burned up in Venus upper atmosphere. So because of This One Simple (photo-reduction) Trick, me and a small cadre of others get to say that our signatures burned up at Venus. O_O
That’s epic 😧
“Film is cheap” LMAO
I mean, comparitive to other technologies, B&W photo film is still pretty damn cheap.
Something to remember is this is the same guy who is trying to set up an array of neurons to play doom, compared to that nonsense film is absolutely cheap
No I understand haha, compared to the cost of his bio lab setup, media, and reagents, some B&W film is probably dirt cheap in comparison.
I mean compared to the materials used to do his bio-engineering stuff then yes it's incredibly cheap
Ilford black and white is basically given away for free. It’s really cheap.
Blazinal is a rebranded version of Rodinal (probably the oldest and most ubiquitous developer still used today) and its generally not a good developer to use more than once, its sometimes called a "one-shot" developer meaning you use it once and toss it. I personally use Kodak Xtol which is excellent for re-use and has a great price-per-roll especially when using the "replenishment" method. However, for your use I would not recomment Xtol because its a "solvent developer" meaning it dissolves the sharp edges of the silver-halide grains and generally smooths out the grain at the cost of some sharpness, rodinal is probably the right choice for what you're using it for because it has exceptionally high sharpness, but you do have the side effect of very strong grain, but like you said you can get finer grain with lower-iso films.
I would like to learn more about the CIA's actual process. For example, did the spies write it on a piece of paper and then shred it? where did they store development equipment? where did they store the film?
It was fun to see my old test pattern from my own tests years ago. This is cool stuff.
Also, Minox 8x11 cameras are basically made for this.
To be clear, you can TOTALLY check each exposure without burning the whole film roll. Get a dark bag. Not a Dark ROOM but a bag. No light. Not even red safe light. Put the camera in the bag with a pair of scissors and a developer kit (reel or boxes if you prefer). Advance the camera few more times to make sure you dont cut photos in half and then open it up and cut. Take the exposed film and put it in the light proof developer canister and refeed the remaining film into the camera. Close it up and advance another 2 or 3 times to make sure you have fresh film ready to go. You loose a few exposures but thats better than the whole reel.
I feel like you guys would love to see things like the microbumps used in silicon-to-silicon chip stacking. Intel Foveros, of which I have been a principal semiconductor physicist. We use a bump pitch of 36 microns and can fit 828 per square milimeter on a 22nm FFL process node. The next-gen one brings back the infamous Intel 14nm in an FFL version and fits more, but I can't say how many just yet.
I like your funny words, magic man. Memes aside, that would be a fascinating process to observe.
Another couple suggestions.
Most commercial lenses are sharpest around f/8 or f/5.6. Opening up or stopping down from there will typically lose sharpness of edges.
Also, you might want to track down a “process camera”, basically a specialized camera meant to copy things to microfilm or for use in printing. They’re fairly cheap because they aren’t useful for art photography, and lot of schools and libraries had them and are getting rid of them.
Also, you should check out the Adox CMS films, which are basically high contrast copy film. The Film Photography Project also has “Hi-Fi” film, which was originally meant for optical sound recording and would do very well for your purposes.
Also also, depending of what you’re photographing, use a red filter on the lens to boost contrast. It’ll knock off about three stops of exposure, but with panchromatic film it’ll render the image in almost pure black or white.
OH! Centrifuge the used developer! - When I was younger in HS doing photography, I would often wonder... wait 'if I'm agitating it and there silver, I always wanted to see if centrifuging it down would yield and microscopic particles at all. Does the photographic/developer process loosen anything up?
(I figured, you're a curious nerd like myself, AND you have the equipment - so the idea might have a chance at nerd sniping you and well... maybe I'd get an answer - Thanks for all your great videos!)
As someone who works in manufacturing precision optics, this is super fascinating
0:57 bro.... why. you cant do this. that should be illegal..... i just lost the game
Wait, other people play the game?!
@@Gabe-vw2ux Not anymore.
Of course, by definition, if you know of it, you've already lost.
congrats your comment was copied by a bot
I’m so excited for the diffraction-video! I’ve worked with diffraction gratings for lasers a lot, but I’ve never understood how it actually works, and you explain these topics so fucking good, so I’m looking forward to learn more.
I really hope you look into shooting light or lasers through your diffraction-filters as well, as that could make some really interesting patterns judging by your examples shown in this video.
Dude is casually performing the double-slit experiment with an old camera.
I guess that's how the rainbow would have to be made.
I work in Utilities mapping. 20 years ago when I started we were digitizing hand drawn maps. And the guys that drew the maps were still there and one of them showed me how small and neatly they could write words on maps. It was amazing. I guess it just takes a lot of practice.
Applied science used a really old camera to do something like this few years ago.
You could use Laser Lithography to achieve a similar result, and potentially also making it with a conductive layer to work as a circuit to store data on almost any object.
With black and white film, the silver halide Chrystals get reduced to metallic silver in the developing process. The fixing removes all the remaining halidechrytals that remain. What you are left with is basically little dots of silver that make up your image.
The developer is in some cases reusable, check the manufacturer's data sheet (there's always a data sheet). There are special high resolution film / developer combinations. I would suggest to look into that. Adox CMS 20 pro and so on. (as others have already commended).
Resolution on the film is a product of: Developer - Film - Optic - Steadiness
When taking an image with your consumer photo optic, and you want to achieve maximum resolution, you should use f,5.6 - f8. An aperture smaller will decrease your resolution, and a more open one will also decrease the resolution.
Reusing the developer could decrease image quality. The developer dilution will also affect your image resolution in many cases. Try to get dedicated "high resolution" films and developers, use your lens at its sweet spot and keep your camera very steady.
All the best!
Few things to note, as scattered around the comments and comments of comments:
- Use aperture F8 for sharper image as rule of thumb. Depends on the glass that you have.
- You can reuse developer few time, but it affects the developing time, as some of the developer is already used, you might want to extend the time a bit
- I didn't see comments nor video commenting anything on controlling the temperature, though on b/w I was taught "so that chemicals feels wet, not warm nor cool", so measuring by feel, not by some thermometer. On color chemistry it's waaaaay more important. Also on color you need to be a lot more exact with your clock than shown on video :D
Thanks again!
14:29 Since generally people do their film processing in the same area they do their photo processing they are going to have running water within a few feet and that's more than enough for the drop or two you are likely to deal with...
Plus the smell of the sulphur complexes on your hands is how we identify our own.
I have never seen a recent video. This is revolutional to me, cause this content is my death and life, warmth to the cold.
To improve the clarity of the lorax, I would have shot the images at f/5.6-8
About reusing developer: reusability depends on developer and usually you can reuse it if you add some time to usual development time. Main problem is that developers in working concentrations will oxidize and change their properties over time (not like in minutes or hours, but in course of weeks), so you will less predictable results, more you reuse developer and more you store it in its working concentration.
I think fruits and vegetables should have laser-engraved QR codes because I dislike removing stickers when composting.
I'm fairly certain the labels are compostable if memory serves.
@@thethoughtemporiumthey are edible but not compostable. Bennet compost in Philadelphia asks everyone to remove stickers from fruit and vegetables. 🤷
@@sjamesparsonsjr I assure you that anything edible is compostable.
I did all this stuff in the late 90s for Art collage here in Australia, brings back memories as you are developing the film
14:15 Developer, developer, developer, developer
- Gather your materials: LSD or other desired psychedelic substance, distilled water, a small container with a dropper, and blank sheets of paper or perforated blotter paper
- Dissolve the LSD or psychedelic substance in distilled water in the small container using the dropper. Make sure to measure the amount accurately for desired dosage strength
- Lay out the blank sheets of paper or perforated blotter paper on a clean, flat surface
- Using the dropper, carefully drop small amounts of the LSD solution onto the paper in evenly spaced dots. Be sure to let the dots dry completely before moving or storing them
- Once the dots are dry, they are ready to be consumed. Simply peel off a dot and ingest it orally for a microdose of the psychedelic substance. Store any remaining dots in a cool, dry place for future use
9:06 i knew it
All sorts of neat stuff can be done with microprinting. LED-based slide projection is still a viable way to get information to a group of people in a small and rugged package with long battery life or easy recharging. Additionally, there was Bokode from the MIT Media Lab - a multiply useful system to read microprinted barcode in a scene using a camera. Not only could you read every single exposed Bokode tag in an image from a single picture, you could use the system as a sort of motion control system by arranging the lens on the controller such that only a section of a "large" (in relative terms) barcode was exposed. If the receiver knew what was on the barcode, the position and angle of the controller could be determined by which section of the code was visible.
But, TBH, I am more interested in a .50USD LED projector than can be used to display things like instructional and repair manuals. A lot of the "appropriate technology" uplift folks would benefit from being able to send teaching materials for a class in a small and durable package. Paper works too, obviously, but training materials are generally bulky and expensive at the classroom scale.
I'd always hoped the bokode would find a use somewhere
@@MaxNippard Same. I loved the motion control concept - we could have interactive displays nearly everywhere that you could use a personal controller on that cost less than USD.50 to make.
I can vouch for contact-dermatitis being induced by photo chemistry. Gloves are highly recommended for photo chemical developing.
“Film is Cheap” Where the heck do you buy your Film? I need to know!
you can also inflate a balloon, draw on it, and deflate it
Is there a photo-resist that would work on a balloon?
Imagine if the agent was never told where to look on the object but only told that there were some microdots on it.
Worse than finding a needle in a haystack 😰
this brings me back to my photography class in high school lol, i felt like a spy or a detective developing film in a darkroom
I have a wonderful ability to detect a nordvpn advertisement long before it happens
"film is cheap" as a film photographer that hert like shit
Biology as a hobby has shifted my understanding of what a "cheap" hobby is. With Bio everything is hundreds or thousands of dollars. So to me 15 bucks for film is dirt cheap comparatively.