Cinestill 800T in 120 - Kickstarter

[mudfly9]

There's now a Kickstarter for CineStill 800T film in 120, presumably made from 65mm film stock.

Dead Link Removed

I for one am very excited about this, long live film!

 

[snapguy]

pitch

The pitch for this stuff on Kickstarter says for the first time 35mm movie film is available for still photographers for shooting and processing. Not! This has been available since at least the 1960s.
I'm all for new stuff being available but one has to realize, also, that movie film is made for the specific needs of moviemakers and may not be "better" for still photography. The stuff I used in the 1960s was lousy.

 

[pseudobreccia]

The 1960's are long gone!

 

[wildbill]

It's the first available that can be processed in c41 chemicals w/o issues.
Yeah, many of us shot motion picture film before these guys sold it as such.

The movie I'm working on now is shooting Imax 65mm. A 1000ft costs $1500 and lasts a whole 2 min 47 seconds. Not cheap when you have two cameras rolling.
I suggest if you buy into their kickstarter and want this film, to buy all you can afford when it becomes available.

 

[analoguey]

Firstly, it's great to see more sellers venture into film. And film based camera making. I applaud cine still for trying this out.
On the film itself, on kick starter, It says 25$ a roll -and the minimum pledge will only sell to the US. (only after 100$ it ships out, I think)
I'm not sure if they've thought through the market pricing well there.
At 25$ , I can get 5 pack portra at 35, I can get Fuji 160 delivered home(Japanese version). And about 3 rolls of portra 800. All 120.

While I would've backed it if pricing was better and film stock info was available and stock not limited to US alone.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[mudfly9]

I agree, the pricing seems a little on the steep side, but perhaps it's similar to New55 in that you're effectively investing in the company buying machinery. Your return? The chance to shoot a high speed tungsten film in medium format. It'd be good to find out whether they're planning on selling it for less once they get going.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Kickstarter isn't for selling finished product. It's for raising funds to do more R/D and start production. It's not fair to compare their reward tiers to the price of products that already exist.

 

[Peter de Groot]

That is a common mistake on crowdfunding sites. People think the pay a price for a finished product. That is how a lot of companies use it as well. However officially it is not allowed. So yeah you are not paying 25 dollars for a roll of film but rather you are paying that amount to make sure production can actually start. As a token of appreciation you get a roll of film.
At New55 the product price was communicated I don't know if Cine Still has made a target price avaible when the film is for sale.

 

[analoguey]

That is a common mistake on crowdfunding sites. People think the pay a price for a finished product. That is how a lot of companies use it as well. However officially it is not allowed. So yeah you are not paying 25 dollars for a roll of film but rather you are paying that amount to make sure production can actually start. As a token of appreciation you get a roll of film.

No, you're mistaken to state so, in this case.
Cinestill doesnt 'make' the film, they repackage it.
They're repackaging it in 135, and this is about the same. Sure, they get by with charging 13$ a roll for 35mm.
But 25$ for repackaging film and only delivering it in a specific place - with no idea of availability after!

This isnt like an Ilford special order either.



Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Stane]

The FAQ section on the Kickstarter page says they aim at a final price of 10-12 USD/roll assuming kickstarter campaign is successful...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

They've also developed a process for removing the remjet without damaging the emulsion, so it's a bit more than repackaging.

I'm wondering, however, about the thickness of the base. There was a problem with the first generation of T-Max films, as I recall, being issued on a base that was too thick, and some cameras were getting damaged by it, so it was reissued on a thinner base. Current T-Max 120 is 4.7 mil. Anyone know what the base thickness of Vision 500T 65mm is? I can't seem to find it on the spec sheet for the film.

It would be great if it works.

 

[mrred]

And I get unhappy with film over the $3 mark.

 

[analoguey]

They've also developed a process for removing the remjet without damaging the emulsion, so it's a bit more than repackaging.

I'm wondering, however, about the thickness of the base. There was a problem with the first generation of T-Max films, as I recall, being issued on a base that was too thick, and some cameras were getting damaged by it, so it was reissued on a thinner base. Current T-Max 120 is 4.7 mil. Anyone know what the base thickness of Vision 500T 65mm is? I can't seem to find it on the spec sheet for the film.

It would be great if it works.

Yes, I simplified it a bit.
I was only responding to the criticism of taking/expecting it as a finished product.

I was emphasising that the whole point of *this* Kickstarter would be to have a finished product - and while I welcome any foray that introduces something new into analog(no matter the price) - here I was concerned with a couple of bits in the Kickstarter. I wrote them as a prospective backer.

It would be a great boost to have a new (or repackaged) film too, no doubt about it - even if at 25$ a roll. It just proves that more people are shooting film (and profitably enough for the manufacturer)

 

[Ektagraphic]

It sounds good to me! Exciting that they are finding enough interest for 120 film, especially for a tungsten. I also find it interesting that they mentioned that they were able to source backing paper and such on the Kickstarter page. I wonder if they will get it through Kodak. Also, I think that it is pretty good that they would be engineering new machinery to work with 120 films.

 

[EdSawyer]

Color me unimpressed. Why not just put together an order of Vision 500T from Kodak, packaged as 120 without remjet? Clearly Kodak would probably do it if the minimum order was met, and it would ultimately be cheaper and better than some 3rd party hackers and their seemingly kludgy methods. And really, who shoots Tungsten anyway? Bit of a pain in the ass most of the time, unless you have a huge stable of hot lights to work with or whatever.

 

[Xmas]

Color me unimpressed. Why not just put together an order of Vision 500T from Kodak, packaged as 120 without remjet? Clearly Kodak would probably do it if the minimum order was met, and it would ultimately be cheaper and better than some 3rd party hackers and their seemingly kludgy methods. And really, who shoots Tungsten anyway? Bit of a pain in the ass most of the time, unless you have a huge stable of hot lights to work with or whatever.

The fundamental problem occurs when Kodak stop selling cine... but anyway
- Removing the REMJET makes it 'Lomo effects' film.
- Using the wrong colour developer not wonderful idea.

If you got spare cash buy Ferranni.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wrote to them asking what the base thickness is, and they didn't give me a direct answer to that question, but I also asked what cameras they've tested it with, and they said:

CineStill 120 film will be completely compatible with all 120 film transports, and comparable to T-max (as you pointed out) or Delta3200. We have tested small amounts of the material in Pentax67, Rollei SL66, Rolleiflex 2.8E & F models, Hasselblads, Mamiya C330, Contax, and several vintage camera backs. Thanks for your support. Cheers!

There was an issue with first generation T-Max 120/220 (which was on 5.5 mil base maybe?), was that it was stripping gears on some cameras, which led to producing the next run on the 4.7 mil base. Anyone recall the details of that situation? I'm not sure I've quite got that right.

 

[mrred]

I see no reason for this kickstart to need to exist, as pointed out many times in this thread. My observation is MF is probably the format with the greatest increasing market share. If anything, the chinese will be making it long after everyone elses factories die.

Think of the death of film like vinyl records. It will never be in it's past glory, but gone forever never really happened. As long as people buy it, they will make it. Save your kickstarter money and feed the poor.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I used to take the "who shoots tungsten" outside of hotlight studios attitude as well, and then I discovered that a high-speed tungsten emulsion is really handy, because it makes more sense to filter tungsten film in brighter daylight conditions than to filter daylight film to tungsten in dim indoor conditions. Sometimes I would travel with two rangefinders, one with Ektachrome 320T for night and indoor shots and the other with Provia 100F for daytime outdoors.

The problem, though, is that for that sort of candid photography, tungsten lighting in general is on the decline, so indoors you might have LED lighting that is quite close to daylight or fluorescent that is close to tungsten plus the green spike that will require about 30CC of magenta to correct even with tungsten film.

 

[ME Super]

+1. I said the same thing to the Film Ferrania folks about the usefulness of a 640T vs. a 400D emulsion. I would lose 2/3 of a stop filtering daylight to match tungsten film, making 640T have a filtered speed of 400. Going the other way with 400D I lose two stupid to the filter, making the filtered speed 100, when daylight is lots brighter than indoor tungsten lighting.

 

[newcan1]

Check which stock Cinestill is using. I don't think an ISO 800 movie camera stock is made anymore. I have a 400ft roll of Kodak 880T, outdated of course, don't remember the catalog number, and it is not good. I probably wouldn't shoot it over 400 ISO and it is very grainy. I wonder why they chose 800T. Vision3 250D is superb and not tungsten.

 

[analoguey]

I asked them if it's same Kodak film as cinestill 800T. This is the answer I got. (I presume it's available for public posting since they have put up other answers on their kick starter as well)

"Yes it is. We are utilizing the same emulsion as 5219 in 35mm motion picture format. It is important to note that this is not "repackaging" a motion picture film. Rather, we are using the advanced technology of the Vision3 emulsions to create a still photography film which is made for C-41 processing. This material is not only a different format and C-41 compatible, the emulsion also responds with a slightly increase gamma yielding an 800 ISO Tungsten balanced negative, on a base which is optimized for digital and optical still photography processes."


Make what you will, of that.

I forgot to ask about the flare though - I suppose that might not differ from the 35mm version?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, my understanding is that the emulsion is 500T, but after treatment to remove the remjet and processing in C-41, it tests at EI 800 rather than 500.

 

[analoguey]

Have you used their 35mm film David? If so how did you manage flare?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I haven't tried the 35mm. I just don't shoot much in that format these days.