Cinestill 50D in C41: How Much Quality Loss?

[Ten301]

Does anyone have a general idea of how much of a loss in image quality Cinestill 50D suffers, if any, from what Kodak intended for the film, when cross-processed in C41 as opposed to its intended ECNII chemistry? Perhaps as a percentage or specific degradation/defects in image quality caused by processing in chemistry for which it wasn't intended?

 

[trendland]

Does anyone have a general idea of how much of a loss in image quality Cinestill 50D suffers, if any, from what Kodak intended for the film, when cross-processed in C41 as opposed to its intended ECNII chemistry? Perhaps as a percentage or specific degradation/defects in image quality caused by processing in chemistry for which it wasn't intended?

C41 doesn't mean you have a crossed proces with Kodak Motion Picture Film.
The recomanded Ecn2 process produces also color negatives as c41 would do.
What are the effects in concern of the quality when you are outside the original
Ecn2 specifications ?
An interesting issue?
I would like to state that c41 is in the very near of ecn2 but this is only half of the true.
In regard of grain and contrast you will normaly have a difference caused from developing with c41 wich is not noticable.
In theory their must be a very little difference but it should be within normal tollerances you also will have caused from water quality, temperature (0,02 degree) or (most effective) your exact exposure.
On that point the discussion on this theme is on an end to me.Some see this different - but to me it is the absolute same characteristic with c41 developing.
Notice : The half of 1/3 stop underexposure with this emulsion should have more effects to grain structure and is also not to be seen with biggest enlargements in still photography.

An other fact is the color corectness - a visable difference caused from c41 is indeed noticable.
It is not so much that you would state :
"Very bad colors - horrable color shifts"
but you have to know before the "look" of this emulsion is an other than designed.
But it you are your own chief to your personal photography it is on you if you like it.
So you would be glad to bee in a position not to have Quenting Tarantino to say : "
Sorry - there was made a mistake - the lab
mixed some informations and some of our rolls we're got back were developed in C41 chemistry."
Perhaps he would kill you therefore, perhaps he would like it and will advice
any lab in the future to develope ONLY
c41 - nowbody knows.
The most I heard here love the color look.
The last issue is the long live stability.
You may have a great impact and you may lost colors in a shorter period caused from c41 - don't forget it is designed to Ecn2 chemisty.
I am not realy sure about - but I remember a statement of PE. to that point in regard of color couplers.
In "Theory" you should have a shorter period of stability. Reality should show
how much this effect is indeed.
But in general it has nothing to do with
month or with couple of weeks is is more
in concern of decades.
"Blue rays with digital raw data will see it's end much much earlier"
Everything clear up to now ?

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The C-41 and ECN-2 processes use different color developing agents so from the get go there will be different color values. Then as with all color cross processing there will be a color shift due to the top color layer getting more/less development. The anti
halation layer (remjet) has been removed before the film is exposed. This may cause problems in certain lighting condtions. Besides the film is certainly no bargain at the quoted prices $11 to $12 per roll.

My advice would be to look at as many sample photos as possible. There is a definite color shift toward colder tones. Reds come out with an orange cast. Skin color is somewhat bluish. You may not find this annoying but I do.

 

[trendland]

An other idea (just theory) because of you asked about quality issues of 50D !
It is a real ISO 50 film. Do you know any
other emulsion with ISO 50 today?
In color ?
Manufacturers stated : their new designed emulsions have now more speed in comparison to the old films AND the characteristic of the new improved films is in addition with the same quality
or it is indeed a little better.
I noticed such anouncements to all the time. So the "Standard ISO film" changed
from ISO 50 in the early 70th up to ISO100 for over one full decade.
After this manufacturers began to establish ISO200 films as a normal standard from the mid 80th till 1991.
From this point they forced ISO 400 films.
What they allways not telling us is that a film with lower speed as improved emulsion with the advanced tecnology they designed is BETTER than the higher
ISO version.
From my point of view 50D with a little correction in E.I. (ISO 30 - ISO 40) will
produce a much much more resolution in comparison with Kodak Ektar 100.
Comparable with a 35 Digital Camera up to 50 MP.
with regard

 

[trendland]

The C-41 and ECN-2 processes use different color developing agents so from the get go there will be different color values. Then as with all color cross processing there will be a color shift due to the top color layer getting more/less development. The anti
halation layer (remjet) has been removed before the film is exposed. This may cause problems in certain lighting condtions. Besides the film is certainly no bargain at the quoted prices $11 to $12 per roll.

My advice would be to look at as many sample photos as possible. There is a definite color shift toward colder tones. Reds come out with an orange cast. Skin color is somewhat bluish. You may not find this annoying but I do.

I am not so much sure about if the anti halation layer is so necessary often stated.
Ok - the design of this emusion is from its
conception done in context WITH this layer - so if you remove it - a part is lost.
But it has a posible more responcibility from its mechanical function (the ramjet)
And problems due to special light situations are ALLWAYS in responcibility
of the photographer ( sorry to say) the emulsion is not the reason in most cases.
But the price is absolut horrable I fully agree with you.
But in concern with the price you have some very interessting alternates.
But therefore you have to make acquaintance with "Mr. RAMJET" ....

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Color correction filters just do not work for cross processed films. The shift is not across all colors. I remember some years ago using an ECN film (along with ECN chemistry) which was balanced for color positive cine stock and not for prints. I could get EITHER yellowish highlights OR a magenta cast in the shadows.. Eliminating both was an impossibility. Then too most people do not have the required CC filters which would be an added expense.

An anti halation coating is appreciated when dealing with backlit subjects or with specular highlights. It prevents light from bouncing back into the emulsion and causes haloes around bright areas. Again some people are unaware of any problems.

 

[trendland]

Sorry I forget to state : EI.30 -E.I. 40 with contrasty scenes ! In general : This film is not so god for use in low light.........
it is to use outdoor in summer, perhaps some remember tyical light situations with Kodakchrome25 - here it is the same.
full sunlight, full shadows, bright natural colors AND (important) : You will allways
have enough speed with this film ...
Believe me !
The lens is absolut imortant - forget any zoom lens, forget any autofocus lens with
plastic components (some have plastic lens elements to avoid gravity issues with autofocus engines).
Use a good mechanical type (Nikon,Canon,Leitz)with hyperfocal distance and if you don't have it look at this lens here :

Zeiss Planar T f1.4/50mm
($725,- at B&H)

This will be the "right stuff" to produce highest resolution with 35mm film.
120 film has more resolution of cause so!

with regards

 

[trendland]

Color correction filters just do not work for cross processed films. The shift is not across all colors. I remember some years ago using an ECN film (along with ECN chemistry) which was balanced for color positive cine stock and not for prints. I could get EITHER yellowish highlights OR a magenta cast in the shadows.. Eliminating both was an impossibility. Then too most people do not have the required CC filters which would be an added expense.

An anti halation coating is appreciated when dealing with backlit subjects or with specular highlights. It prevents light from bouncing back into the emulsion and causes haloes around bright areas. Again some people are unaware of any problems.

Yes I know Gerald, an anti halation layer is somtimes nice to have (special to Bw films) but in this case : Kodak Motion Picture Films it is more responcible to reduce mechanical friction.
You don't need this in still photography
because you don't have 24 frames/25 frames, 50 frames.......up to 300 frames
A SECOND !!!!
I have seen a prototype of a hight speed Motion Camera in the 90th with 600 frames !!!!....the nice guy who showed me this camera has had bad luck.
They can't sell this type.
The anti halation effect of the layer is most overrated from my point of view.
It would realy not help so much as expected from many in direct sunlight.
You mentioned backlight and specular highlights too. Well - I made the experience the quality of the lens with their special coating is of a much more
importance sumetimes.
Remember a winter shooting with a uncoated voigtländer f 7,7/105 mm
against the sun...
No anti halo layer would had made a difference there...

with regards

with regards

 

[EdSawyer]

Given how good / inexpensive / reliable / convenient that Ektar 100 is, I see no reason for the effort and hassle of using Vision 50D for C41.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would also worry about image stability.

PE

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I'm not using my Kodak 50D in C-41 on big screens in movie theaters. It is the only way to determine quality loss. I don't think cinefilm is intended to be checked for quality on prints or scans.
50D in C-41 is just as any cinefilm developed strangely. It gives strange colors. Heck, cinefilms still gives strange colors even in ECN-2 kits I have from guy who makes them for motion film DIY guys.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Over the last year I developed several different ECN-2 based motion picture films (Fuji Eterna, Kodak EXR and Kodak Vision 3) which I shot in my still camera.
I started with C-41, moved to C-41 with RA-4 developer and more recently finally used real ECN-2.
At least my personal results are MUCH MUCH better in real ECN-2 chemistry!
I used to always get images that had way too much magenta in them and also a very high contrast that did not look nice at all.
If you develop at home (as I do) buying cheap short ends of current or old motion picture stock is the best way.
It is much cheaper than any of that Cinestill stuff (which I did try for quite some time) and at least I personally used to have lots of problems with halation.

 

[trendland]

Given how good / inexpensive / reliable / convenient that Ektar 100 is, I see no reason for the effort and hassle of using Vision 50D for C41.

But how would your opinium change if you could get an equivalent of 185 Vision 50D 120 Films at about $ 87,50 ?????
Sure you would like c41 chemistry, sure
you would not care about remjet.It is removable.
Let me last guess : Could it be happen that your last sentence could be :
" I see No reason to spend 20 x $ 45,- =
$900,- to every 100 pcs. package original Kodak c41 stuff "
Notice : 5 x 120 Ektar 100 = ~ $45,- (B&H)


with regards

 

[trendland]

Over the last year I developed several different ECN-2 based motion picture films (Fuji Eterna, Kodak EXR and Kodak Vision 3) which I shot in my still camera.
I started with C-41, moved to C-41 with RA-4 developer and more recently finally used real ECN-2.
At least my personal results are MUCH MUCH better in real ECN-2 chemistry!
I used to always get images that had way too much magenta in them and also a very high contrast that did not look nice at all.
If you develop at home (as I do) buying cheap short ends of current or old motion picture stock is the best way.
It is much cheaper than any of that Cinestill stuff (which I did try for quite some time) and at least I personally used to have lots of problems with halation.

Yes but notice : Kodak EXR and Fuji Eterna is very very old stuff.
I would not expect good results with this
expired films. But you may have luck with
ECN 2 developer.
Look at many examples with cinestill films.To me the colors are absolute nice.
But cinestill is much to expensive that is the most disadvantage I see.

with regards

 

[MattKing]

C41 films have their own anti-halation materials that wash out during processing.
ECN films have a slightly more effective solution for halation - remjet - that also provides lubrication and static energy control.
When Cinestill removes the remjet from ECN camera films, they don't replace the anti-halation function with anything.
They also are selling a film that is designed to be printed onto other (print) film or scanned for eventual printing on to print film, or nowadays digital projection, so the colour response and contrast is designed very differently than films that are designed for either printing on to paper, or scanning for the preparation of prints.
I doubt that the OP's question can be answered in terms of percentages. I'm sure that the differences are sufficient to really bother those of us who tend to notice differences.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Yes but notice : Kodak EXR and Fuji Eterna is very very old stuff.
I would not expect good results with this
expired films. But you may have luck with
ECN 2 developer.

That's what I was trying to say I did in fact use those old expired films as well as new Vision 3 films in both C-41 and ECN-2.
And in my experience all of them, no matter how old or new they were, had always much nicer colors and contrast when done in ECN-2.
It even looked like the expired films had less grain when developed in ECN-2.
The process is a bit more effort than C-41 though, higher temperatures, additional remjet removal step and I am not a big fan of the sulfuric acid that is used.

 

[trendland]

I would also worry about image stability.

PE

Yes I mentioned it at above.But before we definitivly will now how much image
stability will increase we only can wait and look what will happen.
The trend to use color film for ECN2 process in C41as a still film is a new one.
To me it comes from different reasons.
1) discontinued films
2) price increases
3) massive decrease of Motion Picture Films used from studios and filmmakers.
(Due to digital equipment )
4) Overproduced M.P.F. with liited expired dates.

with regards


PS : In very smal amounds Motion Picture Films was used to every time as still film. But it was most bw film.
One of the first guys obviously was Oskar Barnack.
Some made experience from Ecn 2 films with c41 developement but I guess they will not tell us their experience in concern of long time stability.
And I would realy guess Kodak saw no reason to test ECN2 films in c41 all the time.
Perhaps they made tests of c41 in ECN 2,
with higher temperature, wrong delutions, a.s.o. just to look how long new c41 films will survive under extreme
conditions.So I would have made it.
Extreme torture to new emulsions as quality check.

 

[trendland]

That's what I was trying to say I did in fact use those old expired films as well as new Vision 3 films in both C-41 and ECN-2.
And in my experience all of them, no matter how old or new they were, had always much nicer colors and contrast when done in ECN-2.
It even looked like the expired films had less grain when developed in ECN-2.
The process is a bit more effort than C-41 though, higher temperatures, additional remjet removal step and I am not a big fan of the sulfuric acid that is used.

Ok I respect your results - but this is a bad news to me because I just got a big amound of cheap c41 chems.......and I don't want to buy new Ecn 2 chems....


with regards

PS : May bethe colors are much nicer with c-41 to me ????

 

[FilmCurlCom]

PS : May bethe colors are much nicer with c-41 to me ????

Sure! It's a matter of personal taste. So just use whatever looks best to you

 

[trendland]

C41 films have their own anti-halation materials that wash out during processing.
ECN films have a slightly more effective solution for halation - remjet - that also provides lubrication and static energy control.
When Cinestill removes the remjet from ECN camera films, they don't replace the anti-halation function with anything.
They also are selling a film that is designed to be printed onto other (print) film or scanned for eventual printing on to print film, or nowadays digital projection, so the colour response and contrast is designed very differently than films that are designed for either printing on to paper, or scanning for the preparation of prints.
I doubt that the OP's question can be answered in terms of percentages. I'm sure that the differences are sufficient to really bother those of us who tend to notice differences.
May be you are right - perhaps I forget a bit the funktion of anti halo layers in c41
because they are a bit different from conception and design (located between other layers).
They do their job "unvisible" so we don't care about.And by removing Ramjet noting is left.
But on the other hand to me - there is no problem at all.
Perhaps I did not care about therefore so much.
Cause I still like the cinestill "Idea" but the stuff is much overpriced to me.
And so I do the job from cinestill by myself (removing ramjet).
With original 50D (before developing - not before exposure).
And by using this method I need indeed
no halo layer (because I have it)
its only a question to get Ramjet away.
Sorry I mixed this a bit - and yes (in theory) it may caused problems wich original cinestill? ?????

with regards