Report on my experience with VE532 film
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:49 am
I would like to take a few minutes to report to the forum on my experiences with VE532 film; a very generous test sample of which was kindly provided by Valery.
My objective was to compare the performance of the VE532 film to that of other films that I have used. Those include: VRP-M (film and glass plates) purchased through Integraf, VRP-M sample from Geola, and Fuji panchromatic film obtained from Holomaker.
All testing was done by making split-beam transmission holograms using a JDS Uniphase microgreen laser producing 50 mW at 532 nm. My optical bench, subject matter, laser power, beam ratios, film holder, etc, were all held constant. The film was developed using my lab’s standard developer, a 1:4 dilution of Kodak D19 and bleached using ferric EDTA. It should be noted that Valery recommended the use of GP-2 developer with his VE532 film, so my results probably do NOT represent the best that his film can do. (In later e-mails exchanged between us, Valery explicitly stated that GP-2 would have resulted in brighter holograms.) However, I reasoned that his film would be much more appealing to me if I didn't have to switch developers in order to use it (besides, I obtained pretty good results anyway).
The film arrived as a roll 18 cm in diameter (just over 7 inches) which was perfect since I am shooting 5" by 7". It was a simple matter to cut the roll in 5 inch lengths (or in smaller strips for making test exposures). The emulsion is coated onto a PET substrate. The substrate has minute ridges on the two edges of the roll, something that Valery warned me about since I use the glass sandwich technique to hold my film and the ridges would have prevented even, firm pressure. The ridges were easily removed with scissors and did not present any problem. Another interesting observation was that his film was much easier to squeegee cleanly than any of the other films or plates that I had used before. I don’t know why.
Comparisons were made by making test strips that varied by exposure time (with the different films tested) and also by examining the hologram for brightness and noise. Based on my observations, the VE532 is indeed a very low noise film. The hologram comes out crisp and detailed with a background that is almost black. However, compared with the other films I’ve used it is less sensitive. I don’t have the equipment to measure the sensitivity in ujoules per square centimeter, but using identical conditions, a 30 second exposure yielded optimal results on VRP-M, while it took 120 seconds to achieve optimal results on VE532. It seems there really is no free lunch as the apparent price for the low noise, besides reduced sensitivity, is lower diffraction efficiency (at least under the conditions I used). Holograms produced using VE532 were very clean, but not nearly as bright as on VRP-M or Fuji film (albeit at the price of more noise).
In conclusion, if you are making H1 to H2 transfers and have enough laser that you can afford to waste some photons, you should give Valery’s film a try. The price is certainly very good compared with other sources of holographic film and it’s easy to handle and yields low-noise images. On a final note, the sample I tested had occasional surface defects in the emulsion that I attribute to my material coming out of a “sample” run rather than a full production run. Hopefully soon I'll be able to make some GP-2 and re-run some of these test.
My objective was to compare the performance of the VE532 film to that of other films that I have used. Those include: VRP-M (film and glass plates) purchased through Integraf, VRP-M sample from Geola, and Fuji panchromatic film obtained from Holomaker.
All testing was done by making split-beam transmission holograms using a JDS Uniphase microgreen laser producing 50 mW at 532 nm. My optical bench, subject matter, laser power, beam ratios, film holder, etc, were all held constant. The film was developed using my lab’s standard developer, a 1:4 dilution of Kodak D19 and bleached using ferric EDTA. It should be noted that Valery recommended the use of GP-2 developer with his VE532 film, so my results probably do NOT represent the best that his film can do. (In later e-mails exchanged between us, Valery explicitly stated that GP-2 would have resulted in brighter holograms.) However, I reasoned that his film would be much more appealing to me if I didn't have to switch developers in order to use it (besides, I obtained pretty good results anyway).
The film arrived as a roll 18 cm in diameter (just over 7 inches) which was perfect since I am shooting 5" by 7". It was a simple matter to cut the roll in 5 inch lengths (or in smaller strips for making test exposures). The emulsion is coated onto a PET substrate. The substrate has minute ridges on the two edges of the roll, something that Valery warned me about since I use the glass sandwich technique to hold my film and the ridges would have prevented even, firm pressure. The ridges were easily removed with scissors and did not present any problem. Another interesting observation was that his film was much easier to squeegee cleanly than any of the other films or plates that I had used before. I don’t know why.
Comparisons were made by making test strips that varied by exposure time (with the different films tested) and also by examining the hologram for brightness and noise. Based on my observations, the VE532 is indeed a very low noise film. The hologram comes out crisp and detailed with a background that is almost black. However, compared with the other films I’ve used it is less sensitive. I don’t have the equipment to measure the sensitivity in ujoules per square centimeter, but using identical conditions, a 30 second exposure yielded optimal results on VRP-M, while it took 120 seconds to achieve optimal results on VE532. It seems there really is no free lunch as the apparent price for the low noise, besides reduced sensitivity, is lower diffraction efficiency (at least under the conditions I used). Holograms produced using VE532 were very clean, but not nearly as bright as on VRP-M or Fuji film (albeit at the price of more noise).
In conclusion, if you are making H1 to H2 transfers and have enough laser that you can afford to waste some photons, you should give Valery’s film a try. The price is certainly very good compared with other sources of holographic film and it’s easy to handle and yields low-noise images. On a final note, the sample I tested had occasional surface defects in the emulsion that I attribute to my material coming out of a “sample” run rather than a full production run. Hopefully soon I'll be able to make some GP-2 and re-run some of these test.
