Maybe 220 Doesn't Make Sense? Analyzing Per-frame Costs in 120 and 220 Shanghai GP3 & CineStill 400D

Google Docs Spreadsheet:
docs.google.co...
A number of you pointed out that 220 is more expensive to buy and, given the general cost of everything, that it doesn't make sense. So I spent the weekend working up a spreadsheet with some formulas to test that. And yes, the up-front cost of 220 is higher than 120 in most cases. However, breaking it down into per-frame costs shows a different story where each 220 frame is a lower cost than the 120 alternative. In the case of Shanghai GP3, when developed at home, the savings can be significant. With CineStill 400D the cost savings are limited to however much less developing one roll of 220 costs versus two rolls of 120.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com...
My Instagram:
/ davidhancock
"White Gold (Instrumental Version)" by Tommy Ljungberg used under active license from Epidemic Sound at the time of this video's upload.

[@kyleglasgow007]

Great analysis & write up as always. Super useful information. I’m hoping that there are more 220 options coming to market. Would love to see Portra 800 in 220 or XP2 in 220.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Kyle!

[@arricammarques1955]

Wow! Informative info of 120-220 film. Cheers, mate.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@raulnava8282]

Hello David, in addition the 220 film backs are cheaper than 120 since the film has been absent for so long :)

[@DavidHancock]

Oh good point! I had not thought of that. Thank you!

[@mattdyer9544]

They won't be for long!

[@raulnava8282]

@@mattdyer9544 That is true, we need to get one while they are at a good price!

[@mattdyer9544]

Not exactly the subject of this video but GP3 being available 127 and 620 is also interesting.

[@DavidHancock]

I agree. It's fascinating to me that those capabilities exist somewhere.

[@johnkaplun9619]

How could anyone compare it roll to roll? That makes no sense. That's like saying I don't shoot 36exp. rolls in 135 because 12exp. rolls are cheap.

[@DavidHancock]

The idea is to look at the cost per frame and the idea for the video stemmed from questions on a previous video.

[@johnkaplun9619]

@@DavidHancock of course, not questioning anything in your video. Just confused by the logic of commenter who lead you to make the video.

[@DavidHancock]

@@johnkaplun9619 Ah, got it and thank you.

[@cecilsharps]

oh i'd take almost any b@w emulsion in 220. I shot the 320 tri-x in 220 for a few years.

[@DavidHancock]

320 would be a nice emulsion to have outside of sheet film.

[@ZommBleed]

...until they jack the prices up for 220 after everyone starts buying it. The Professor wins again. Looks like Steinbeck was the only one wearing a tie today.

[@DavidHancock]

Yeah, laundry day. :D

[@davecarrera]

So Kodak dev team. Ektachrome 220 please :-)

[@DavidHancock]

:D I would buy it.

[@davecarrera]

@@DavidHancock just developed my first 3 rolls 1 x 35mm 2 x 120 and looking good. Even the underexposed 120 roll i shot looks a possibility to edit. So to bring the cost per frame down I again hope the Kodak team watches your channel 🙂

[@DavidHancock]

@@davecarrera There are a few people at Kodak who subscribe, I'm told. 😀

[@davecarrera]

@@DavidHancock in with a chance then 🙂