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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😅
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.
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 :)
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 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
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
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.
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
10:58 this is actually a common beginner photography enthusiast pitfall. A given lens is not guaranteed to be sharpest when wide open - in almost all cases it's not. The rule of thumb is two stops above maximum aperture is sharpest. In your case it should be around F3.4. That being said, an ancient consumer lens is probably so imperfect that it doesn't make a huge difference in this case
I believe he meant fully stopped down, not wide open, might degrade sharpness a little bit but with PAN-F in this case that should still out-resolve the film or at least get reasonably close. It will also ensure that even if you miss focus a tiny bit which is easy since you're trying to make the image a tiny part of the frame, it will likely still be well within the depth of field. This is however still important as he said in an E-mail that he had ordered some ADOX CMS 20 II. That will absolutely out-resolve the lens so for that it is important.
@@alfepalfe Maybe he meant maximum as in "the highest number" and not "widest opening" (as is the proper definition). But it sure doesn't look like it when he shows himself focusing through the viewfinder. It's just a reenactment for the camera of course so it's not all that easy to tell. But hopefully he reads the comments so he'll use a more in-between aperture in the future
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
seeing the film reel being loaded took me staight back to college black and white film class - in my area i had the last year they offered it as they swapped to full digital. it was so fun!
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 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?
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!
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!
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.
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 was wondering how people were making projection necklaces (more specifically, custom tiny transparent images) and boom voila the tech for doing so was fed straight to me in a well produced and researched video thank you for sharing!
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.
Got developer chemicals, print paper, and enlarger as a Christmas present - 1984 - My dad passing along a well-loved past-time. Great work on showing the process.
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.
Where in gods green hell did you find a working EM slr for $80?? Thats far more unbelievable than fitting the entire encyclopedia brittanica on your left butt cheek.
Local flea markets and such can be a good place. I got a perfectly working Konica Autoreflex T3N for 28$. At that price it included a camera bag. 50mm f/1.7 hexanon lens. Another 135mm f/3.5 Hexanon lens (both lenses flawless and a case for the 135mm lens too). A working electronic flash. Lens cleaning supplies and the camera manual. You have to go to places that aren't specific to cameras, just your average Joe thinking it's old and probably not useful as anything but a pretty decoration.
@@amelliamendel2227 yea about the best I can ever find there usually for nice old cameras at that price is something so far gone the only recoverable parts are the screws. And those are questionable.
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.
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 😰
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.
2:06 "No one" is a pretty strong word to use here :X 7:37 A PCB is NOT a computer chip. A PCB is a Printed Circuit Board, it will most likely have chips ON it but it is NOT a chip. It's just traces to connect everything together, and house it. Sorry to be a butt, but you're a channel about learning, you gotta get it right! :P
Both the manufacture of ICs, AND PCBs use photo resist. The AND in the sentence is because 2 things both use the same material. I never implied they were the same thing.
@@thethoughtemporium Ahhh, sorry the way it was said it sounded like you were saying "Computer Chips, AKA PCBs" with the or there! I'll delete the comment if you want.
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.
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?
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.
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😊
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.... 😂
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.
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
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.
> "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".
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
5:54 "film is cheap" :-D :-D :-D Film has become an expensive hobby.
I jumped when I heard that
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
I should have used this technique to make my formula sheets in university. I could have fit all my assignments on it and everything!
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.
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
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.
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”
Totally doing this with the kids! This'll take their clubhouse messages to the next level 🎉
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.
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 😅
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.
I'm so happy your family found this video and uploaded it after your tragic accident!
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 :)
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 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
“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
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.
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
10:58 this is actually a common beginner photography enthusiast pitfall. A given lens is not guaranteed to be sharpest when wide open - in almost all cases it's not. The rule of thumb is two stops above maximum aperture is sharpest. In your case it should be around F3.4. That being said, an ancient consumer lens is probably so imperfect that it doesn't make a huge difference in this case
I believe he meant fully stopped down, not wide open, might degrade sharpness a little bit but with PAN-F in this case that should still out-resolve the film or at least get reasonably close. It will also ensure that even if you miss focus a tiny bit which is easy since you're trying to make the image a tiny part of the frame, it will likely still be well within the depth of field. This is however still important as he said in an E-mail that he had ordered some ADOX CMS 20 II. That will absolutely out-resolve the lens so for that it is important.
@@alfepalfe Maybe he meant maximum as in "the highest number" and not "widest opening" (as is the proper definition). But it sure doesn't look like it when he shows himself focusing through the viewfinder. It's just a reenactment for the camera of course so it's not all that easy to tell. But hopefully he reads the comments so he'll use a more in-between aperture in the future
professor: you can make a cheat sheet if it fits on one piece of paper
me:
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.
As someone who works in manufacturing precision optics, this is super fascinating
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.
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.
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
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
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
I just noticed how good this ad read was. A VPN sponsorship that actually detailed exactly what it does without any misleading promotion. Nice!
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
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.
I was about to skip forward 30 seconds at 2:05 ngl thought you were about to drop the nord vpn ad
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.
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.
seeing the film reel being loaded took me staight back to college black and white film class - in my area i had the last year they offered it as they swapped to full digital. it was so fun!
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.
That's cool! The pattern stuff sounds/looks fascinating!
Looking forward to the next one!
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?
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!
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.
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 thought 2:05 was leading into a VPN ad and was very surprised to find it wasn't after pressing right arrow a couple times.
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
1:59 I was SURE this would be a sponsor ad about something.
8:44 OK I was right, it was just a split ad. You got me on the first half.
9:06 i knew it
Man that takes me back the projector machine when you go to reading articles newspapers an actually that was used way back when!
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!
wow, the nostalgia of the first message just got my feels in a bunch..
I can vouch for contact-dermatitis being induced by photo chemistry. Gloves are highly recommended for photo chemical developing.
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.
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 did all this stuff in the late 90s for Art collage here in Australia, brings back memories as you are developing the film
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
„Film is cheap😂 comedian of the Century born right there
To improve the clarity of the lorax, I would have shot the images at f/5.6-8
I have never seen a recent video. This is revolutional to me, cause this content is my death and life, warmth to the cold.
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 was wondering how people were making projection necklaces (more specifically, custom tiny transparent images) and boom voila
the tech for doing so was fed straight to me in a well produced and researched video
thank you for sharing!
14:15 Developer, developer, developer, developer
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.
you can also inflate a balloon, draw on it, and deflate it
Is there a photo-resist that would work on a balloon?
Got developer chemicals, print paper, and enlarger as a Christmas present - 1984 - My dad passing along a well-loved past-time. Great work on showing the process.
Watched on Nebula, commenting for “engagement.”
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.
Where in gods green hell did you find a working EM slr for $80?? Thats far more unbelievable than fitting the entire encyclopedia brittanica on your left butt cheek.
Local flea markets and such can be a good place. I got a perfectly working Konica Autoreflex T3N for 28$. At that price it included a camera bag. 50mm f/1.7 hexanon lens. Another 135mm f/3.5 Hexanon lens (both lenses flawless and a case for the 135mm lens too). A working electronic flash. Lens cleaning supplies and the camera manual.
You have to go to places that aren't specific to cameras, just your average Joe thinking it's old and probably not useful as anything but a pretty decoration.
I'm certain that he said Facebook marketplace
@@amelliamendel2227 yea about the best I can ever find there usually for nice old cameras at that price is something so far gone the only recoverable parts are the screws. And those are questionable.
I worked at a one hour photo place the summer after high school. This really brought back some memories.
I lost the game
That first microdot reminds me of the Despair Squid episode in the 90s TV Show Red Dwarf.
"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.
This is really taking me back to my college photography and development classes.
Error at 4:15 . That’s not microfiche. It’s microfilm. Microfiche is a single sheet of film. Microfilm is, of course, a long reel of film.
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 😰
Much more interesting that the neuron shit.
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.
Wake up babe new thought emporium just dropped
This is like a Technology Connections and Huygens Optics crossover episode.
2:06 "No one" is a pretty strong word to use here :X
7:37 A PCB is NOT a computer chip. A PCB is a Printed Circuit Board, it will most likely have chips ON it but it is NOT a chip. It's just traces to connect everything together, and house it.
Sorry to be a butt, but you're a channel about learning, you gotta get it right! :P
Chips are also made with photoresist
Both the manufacture of ICs, AND PCBs use photo resist. The AND in the sentence is because 2 things both use the same material. I never implied they were the same thing.
@@thethoughtemporium Ahhh, sorry the way it was said it sounded like you were saying "Computer Chips, AKA PCBs" with the or there! I'll delete the comment if you want.
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.