CineStill 800 Tungsten Video Review

RetroCameraReview · May 26, 2015

Hi,

I just shot a roll of CineStill 800 Tungsten and wanted to share my video review here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW6oSAQBI0s

It wasn't the magic bullet I was hoping for in haphazard lighting situations, but under well lit conditions this film would serve you extremely well. Enjoy.

Element 6 · May 26, 2015

Thanks for posting. I just loaded my first roll of Cinestill 800T last night and was taking some snaps of my toddler in the kitchen. I look forward to the results. Note: just last night I read a thread on APUG about the questionable longevity of Cinestill processed in C-41. So beware.

But it sure was fun taking pictures in low light without a flash!! Can't wait to see how they turn out.

RetroCameraReview · May 26, 2015

Thanks! Yeah I heard the film stock used in motion pictures are designed specifically for moving over to scans and to positive film. I think movies must place less emphasis on the longevity of the original film stock.

ME Super · May 26, 2015

PE would beg to differ with you about camera stock, whether reversal or negative. Stability of dyes is of Paramount concern at EK's film division. This why he says the dyes may be off and not as stable when this film is run through C-41. It uses a different color developer than ECN2. C-41 uses CD-4, and I believe ECN2 uses CD-3.

Element 6 · May 26, 2015

RetroCameraReview said:
I think movies must place less emphasis on the longevity of the original film stock.

It has to do with processing in C-41. Cine film processed in ECN has very good longevity. I am not an expert, but Photo Engineer posted, so its as good as true:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

lhalcong · May 27, 2015

Skin tones still look very yellowish to me. (Particularly more in the first shot). like if it had been shot with regular daylight film...

RetroCameraReview · May 27, 2015

Yeah, I kind of agree. I wish I had brought that up. I have a feeling this film is balanced towards 3400K based on a quote from the BH: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754457-USA/Kodak_1802438_VISION3_500T_Color_Negative.html

My sense is that there's 2 things going on:
1. The film was intended for use with Tungsten Movie lights which are more precisely around the 3200K+ Color Temp
2. The C41 process develops the film with a slightly different color balance.

Lamar · May 27, 2015

I haven't seen anything online that would make me buy Cine Still yet. The grain you showed at EI 1600 looked good though. I've been really happy with Portra 400 and pushing it or just underexposing. Fuji Pro 400H runs a close second for me with a bit more grain but really nice colors, Fuji thinks a lot if it too...... $$$

Lamar · Jun 10, 2015

Ok, this whole Cinestill thing got in my head and wouldn't go away so I bought two rolls of 800T and two of 50D. They just came in today. It may take a while to shoot and develop. I don't want to just go plinking away with $10 a roll film like I do Superia Xtra.

film_man · Jun 11, 2015

Make sure you tape the window in the film door. I had the tiniest of light leaks that didn't show up with any other film messing up a few 800T shots.

Xmas · Jun 11, 2015

film_man said:
Make sure you tape the window in the film door. I had the tiniest of light leaks that didn't show up with any other film messing up a few 800T shots.

Removing the REMJET will make it susceptible to leaks at cassette window or left side, top and bottom of back seals, which may not show with normal film. The window can be a problem with PET film too.

Noel

Gerald C Koch · Jun 13, 2015

The color rendition of cross-processed films is always going to be off. The question one must ask is are you willing to overlook this problem to save a small amount of money>

CineStill 800 Tungsten Video Review

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency