Cinestill 50D

[John_A]

Did anyone got their hands on the Cinestill 50D released late last year? Anyone tried it out yet? From what I've seen so far it looks promising.

 

[Richard Man]

Freestyle is backordered. I am waiting for mine to come in. I like the T800 a lot and look forward to the 50D

 

[film_man]

I've got 30 rolls of the stuff. So far shot 2 rolls and from my limited experience I find it is a very nice film. The colour rendition is different to anything else, I think probably the closest would be Ektar in some respects but it is not as saturated. There really is no grain so it gives you a near medium-format look in some situations and with the right light. My only issue with the film is the halos around highlights, which of course is to be expected as the remjet is gone. So I'm really liking it and just learning when to *not* shoot it to avoid halation issues.

So far I shot one roll rated 40 and one rated 80 and pushed 1 stop. The pushed roll gets a tiny bit muddy in the shadows but still looks good although with just two rolls shot in total I can't say for sure. I think I'll try one more roll pushed and if it comes back the same then I'll use something else when I need the speed.

Overall I do like the film and with 800T it makes a very nice pair. It is a bit more expensive than Ektar, Portra and the rest but I prefer the colour of 50D over either of these in 35mm as Ektar can be too saturated while Portra can get too muted at times. 50D is bang on for my taste.

 

[wildbill]

It's funny that some of us shot this stuff (all the movie films) all the time in the 90's and 2000's until RGB color lab shut down. RGB gave you a roll of film every time you dropped one off for processing. Now suddenly, it's NEW and costs way more than it should.
Get your hands on some 200T, that's good stuff.

 

[Roger Cole]

Until I found this thread looking for the one on 800T I didn't realize this stuff existed so I went and looked it up.

What, exactly, is the point? It's daylight balanced. It's 50 speed. It costs similar to Ektar or Portra. The 800T seems to have a use for me (I just ordered a roll because I have some stuff coming up where I can try it and because doing so put my order over the B&H amount for free expedited shipping so buying it was basically as cheap as not buying it, or almost so) because it's the only commonly available tungsten film I know of and because tungsten light is usually low light so a pushable 800 is good too. But 50 speed daylight balanced film? If colors are similar to Ektar, just shoot Ektar. Ektar is half as expensive and designed for C41 and superb. If that's too saturated shoot Portra, which is still a bit less expensive (all this based on Freestyle prices I just checked) or any of the commonly available consumer grade 35mm films. What am I missing here?

 

[Richard Man]

The point is that it's another option. Options are good.

As for why one might consider this option, supposedly "grain-free," and of course the cinematic colors.

And this is the latest gen of the movie stuff - so better than the 200T in that regard. The color palette are different from Portra/Ektar. Try it. You may like it.

Of course you can process it using C41. I have done so. No problems at all.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well I don't know what "cinematic colors" are. Like Ektar only less saturated - well that would be "like Portra, only more in need of filtration for open shade" maybe. But ok, the palette is different. That's reason enough if it's different enough to matter and be noticed.

 

[Richard Man]

I use "cinematic colors" as a short hand. Honestly, if you are interested, spend $10 to find out. If not, nothing is lost. If you are looking for preaching to why this is the best thing ever, you are talking to the wrong APUGer

 

[film_man]

Until I found this thread looking for the one on 800T I didn't realize this stuff existed so I went and looked it up.

What, exactly, is the point? It's daylight balanced. It's 50 speed. It costs similar to Ektar or Portra. The 800T seems to have a use for me (I just ordered a roll because I have some stuff coming up where I can try it and because doing so put my order over the B&H amount for free expedited shipping so buying it was basically as cheap as not buying it, or almost so) because it's the only commonly available tungsten film I know of and because tungsten light is usually low light so a pushable 800 is good too. But 50 speed daylight balanced film? If colors are similar to Ektar, just shoot Ektar. Ektar is half as expensive and designed for C41 and superb. If that's too saturated shoot Portra, which is still a bit less expensive (all this based on Freestyle prices I just checked) or any of the commonly available consumer grade 35mm films. What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that this is "choice". By your reasoning there is no point shooting Portra 400 as Fuji 400H is just as nice and a bit cheaper. Or maybe all C41 films should be down to using Portra 400 as you can shoot that at 100-1600 without push and you'll get something out, then it is just a little bit of playing in scanning to tweak the saturation. Also, what is the point anyway of all these B&W films, I mean they are all black and white. You could have PanF for ISO 50, TriX for 400 and Delta 3200 for 3200. All the others are just noise.

50D is a bit like Ektar if you're looking for the closest look but it is not Ektar, it is not Portra and it certainly isn't Fuji. You're probably going to have a seizure if I told you that I actually do like 800T shot in daylight with a warm up filter. Again, nothing like Portra or Fuji. Choice is good!

I just don't get it in here...every time a film is discontinued the weeping and talk of the good old days is 20 pages long yet someone makes a new film and you get all these "what's the point".

 

[Richard Man]

...
I just don't get it in here...every time a film is discontinued the weeping and talk of the good old days is 20 pages long yet someone makes a new film and you get all these "what's the point".

Ha ha, so true.

 

[Roger Cole]

Good grief chill - I'm not the one about to have the seizure. It was an honest question. This is a repackaged cine film intended for ECN processing. It just seems an odd one to me for someone to remove the remjet, repackage and sell, at higher price accordingly, for C41 processing. I get it for 800T as there aren't any native tungsten C41 films.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[August]

To each their own. Personally, I go the extra steps and bulk load this film from cinema reels and process the film myself with the remjet still present. But that's just my personal choice.

While I applaud Cinestill for what they're doing, I still think they charge way more per roll than I feel is necessary, but at least they're trying to bring something different to the market. More film that's available for us to shoot, the better. If anything, I wonder if they're going to try to restart their Cinestill 120 Kickstarter again. Be cool to shoot 50D and 800T in my Isolette.

 

[Arctic amateur]

What would be a fair price, considering the work needed to go from Vision film stock to cartridges of C50?

 

[August]

Personal opinion, I tend to be cheap anyway, but at least a dollar or two cheaper.

More than likely the extra money is going to pay for the machine and/or processes they use, so I can understand the higher price though.

 

[newcan1]

I assume that those of you who are raving about Cinestill are either using it for scanning, or getting prints made from scans. I have tons of movie film and it scans very well, but when it comes to optical prints...forget it, unless you are willing to alter the print developer chemistry and maybe push process the negatives to get the contrast up. Conventional C41 film that is contrast balanced for conventional printing is a far simpler option.

 

[perkeleellinen]

but when it comes to optical prints...forget it

Hello Newcan,

I've been intrigued by the low contrast issue with ECN films. In your opinion, could it work for special applications like 'sterile' cityscapes dominated by concrete or portraits with a sort of 'washy' feel?

 

[Moopheus]

I have a question for anyone who's tried the 800T--these days, lighting might not be just tungsten, but also a variety of fluorescent and LED lighting, as more and more tungsten bulbs get replaced with newer lights. Maybe mixed lights in one room. Does the film work well with these lights, or does it need filtering?

 

[wildbill]

I have a question for anyone who's tried the 800T--these days, lighting might not be just tungsten, but also a variety of fluorescent and LED lighting, as more and more tungsten bulbs get replaced with newer lights. Maybe mixed lights in one room. Does the film work well with these lights, or does it need filtering?

Most led's need a bit of green corrected out. Depends on what you mean by "work well". Most of the movies/tv you've seen used corrected fluorescent tubes and led's. Existing flourescents will have their color casts on any color film, no worse with this film. Even the led fixtures we use in the film industry need 1/8 magenta, sometimes more. Lee Filters has even released Led digital filters into their lineup of lighting color correction.

 

[Moopheus]

Depends on what you mean by "work well".

I guess what I mean is if you are shooting not in a controlled studio, but out in the street, or somewhere indoors where the lighting could be anything sold at the local hardware store, what might be your best bet for filtering, and have it come out not too obviously wrong. Even when tungsten-balanced films were more common, I didn't use them very much. In fact, I was almost ready to give up on color entirely, but this looks like something that might be worth a try.

And to those complaining about the cost: if you think you can make an equivalent commercial product and sell it for less, you are free to try. Good luck!

 

[wildbill]

I guess what I mean is if you are shooting not in a controlled studio, but out in the street, or somewhere indoors where the lighting could be anything sold at the local hardware store, what might be your best bet for filtering, and have it come out not too obviously wrong. Even when tungsten-balanced films were more common, I didn't use them very much. In fact, I was almost ready to give up on color entirely, but this looks like something that might be worth a try.

And to those complaining about the cost: if you think you can make an equivalent commercial product and sell it for less, you are free to try. Good luck!

I don't care what anyone says, that ? cannot be answered. It's like asking what is the best time of day to shoot.
No filter is your best bet if you don't own/know how to use a color meter and carry an array of on camera filters and lighting equipment.

 

[newcan1]

I would say no. You need to match the film to the paper. I have gotten halfway there by adding hydrogen peroxide to the paper developer, but in my opinion the negative contrast also has to be boosted so the paper and the negative meet each other halfway. I have tried double developing the negative, with some success (dev-stop-fix-bleach-wash-dev-bleach-fix) but that tends to increase grain. Some films are not too far off contrast-wise, like Vision3 250D, I wonder with that whether a one stop push processing might boost the contrast sufficiently. In fact, with that film stock I have had good results just by adding H202 to the paper developer to boost paper contrast a bit.

 

[wildbill]

When we used to shoot 200T for motion pictures, we'd often push it to 400 and use in instead of 500t just to get the added contrast.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Thanks Newcan, that saves me the experiment.

 

[film_man]

I don't understand the price issue that people talk about. In the UK the price difference of Cinestill 800T vs a roll of Portra 400 (probably the closest equivalent) is about 30-35p, under 5%. If you shoot 100 rolls in a year that's under £4/$6 per month extra which is not exactly an extravagant expense. If you shoot 1000 rolls then you're probably not that concerned about the cost anyway and compared to sourcing and bulk loading/processing yourself you'd be willing to pay even more to not have to do it for these quantities.

 

[Moopheus]

I don't understand the price issue that people talk about. In the UK the price difference of Cinestill 800T vs a roll of Portra 400 (probably the closest equivalent) is about 30-35p, under 5%.

Well, they have to source the film stock, process it to remove the remjet, spool and repackage the film, and arrange for distribution. They have to pay their own r&d cost, and presumably do this with very little economy of scale. The fact that they can price it anywhere close to Kodak's product is actually kind of remarkable.