Cinestill 800T in 120 - Kickstarter

[analoguey]

Hmm. I'm quite taken by the colours that x-processing the cine film seems to get. I should be able to figure that out in the next couple of weeks.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[EdSawyer]

That answer from them smacks of bullshit. It obviously is repackaging of cine film.

 

[wildbill]

That answer from them smacks of bullshit. It obviously is repackaging of cine film.

NO SHIT.
It's called Cinestill so they are clearly hiding all their tricks. They remove the remjet layer from the 1000ft roll, cut off 36 exposure lengths, spool it into cartridges, and sell it to anyone willing to buy it. And now they want to do the same with wider film, UNBELIEVABLE!
They even have the balls to put all this info on their website:Dead Link Removed

 

[analoguey]

It certainly looks like something for the lomo folks, doesnt it?
If they pony up for the Lomo fare, they sure would for the Cinestill.

 

[DanielStone]

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.

There's a few issues in what you proposed:
"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."

They(Cinestill) have talked directly with Kodak about this, and Kodak WILL NOT make a special order w/o remjet. PERIOD. No amount of money would sway that decision(what I was told directly by Brian & Brandon, they're personal friends of mine). Remjet serves multiple purposes, most importantly being the following: anti-halation backing, anti-static(motion picture cameras have a MUCH higher film transport speed than still cameras), and a protective backing for the base side of the film.

"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."

Obviously, you haven't been to many events(like weddings) where traditional tungsten-balanced lighting fixtures have been used, even traditional light bulbs? Shooting tungsten balanced film under daylight conditions means a loss of ~2/3 stop of light when filtering daylight->tungsten film. Shooting daylight balanced film under tungsten lighting is a 2 stop loss... Plus you get a bump in film speed.

-Dan

 

[Xmas]

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.

It is dependent on Kodak (continuing) making cine... think of sending a kissogram to Judas I, with an enclosed cheque.

The dyes are less stable with CD4?

Splitting and making it up as 120 or 220 more practical, scratch mix the ECN soup. It is wilful to remove the REMJET before shooting. It makes it Lomo film.

 

[TheToadMen]

"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."

Obviously, you haven't been to many events(like weddings) where traditional tungsten-balanced lighting fixtures have been used, even traditional light bulbs? Shooting tungsten balanced film under daylight conditions means a loss of ~2/3 stop of light when filtering daylight->tungsten film. Shooting daylight balanced film under tungsten lighting is a 2 stop loss... Plus you get a bump in film speed.

-Dan

Hi Dan,
I think this was certainly true in "the old days" when analogue ruled, but is this still the case? Digital cameras aside, if I shoot with daylight film in tungsten-light environments, isn't it easy (or easier) to scan the film and use Photoshop for filtering, thus not loosing any stops anymore? I know, this is not what I like to do as an analogue photographer. But what would one do nowadays as a wedding photographer trying to make a living with an easier standard Modus Operandi (but still not using a digital camera)? It's hard (overhere in Holland) to find a decent lab for making decent C-prints in colour....

And since the normal bulbs are bannend nowadays and most often replaced with LED lights, isn't it easier to use daylight film? I'm not sure but I think LED is closer to daylight than to old bulb lights, isn't it?

(BTW: I'm just curious, not trying to be argumentative )

Having said that, I really like the colours and atmosphere in the presented images on Dead Link Removed. I wonder if these are scanned prints or negatives and if there was any PS tinkering done.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Dan,
I think this was certainly true in "the old days" when analogue ruled, but is this still the case? Digital cameras aside, if I shoot with daylight film in tungsten-light environments, isn't it easy (or easier) to scan the film and use Photoshop for filtering, thus not loosing any stops anymore? I know, this is not what I like to do as an analogue photographer. But what would one do nowadays as a wedding photographer trying to make a living with an easier standard Modus Operandi (but still not using a digital camera)? It's hard (overhere in Holland) to find a decent lab for making decent C-prints in colour....

And since the normal bulbs are bannend nowadays and most often replaced with LED lights, isn't it easier to use daylight film? I'm not sure but I think LED is closer to daylight than to old bulb lights, isn't it?

(BTW: I'm just curious, not trying to be argumentative )

Having said that, I really like the colours and atmosphere in the presented images on Dead Link Removed. I wonder if these are scanned prints or negatives and if there was any PS tinkering done.

It is easier yes if you don't over cook the red layer or underexpose the blue... That is what the tungsten film avoided with correct colour temp lamps otherwise you needed cc filters and grey card as well.

If you have tungsten light you would swap backs.

Or you bounce a high power computer flash of a white ceiling or multi flash off reflectors staple gunned to walls.

 

[analoguey]

There's a few issues in what you proposed:
"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."

They(Cinestill) have talked directly with Kodak about this, and Kodak WILL NOT make a special order w/o remjet. PERIOD. No amount of money would sway that decision(what I was told directly by Brian & Brandon, they're personal friends of mine). Remjet serves multiple purposes, most importantly being the following: anti-halation backing, anti-static(motion picture cameras have a MUCH higher film transport speed than still cameras), and a protective backing for the base side of the film.

"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."

Obviously, you haven't been to many events(like weddings) where traditional tungsten-balanced lighting fixtures have been used, even traditional light bulbs? Shooting tungsten balanced film under daylight conditions means a loss of ~2/3 stop of light when filtering daylight->tungsten film. Shooting daylight balanced film under tungsten lighting is a 2 stop loss... Plus you get a bump in film speed.

-Dan

Dan, wish them luck from me!
I get the point about tungsten - but with remjet gone, the advice is to avoid direct light or bright spots of it - as flare would be an issue isnt it?

Obviously, Kodak's the only game in town and even they claim they're shaky just a year and half from now - how long the 'star directors' can fight studios is unknown.


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[film_man]

I have actually shot the 35mm stuff. I can't say I got the hang of it and it is a bit pricey but I'm glad they make it. And I'm glad they want to make some 120 too. Who knows, with the experience/money they pick up from this once Fuji/Kodak stop making other films they may have enough experience and money to continue production of other films. I'm also glad the Impossible Project is trying to get some instant film done too.

What I don't get is this: Here we are in a film forum with people lamenting the death of whatever film dies this week and now that someone dares "make" a new one it gets dismissed as bs, "repackaging", lomo crap or whatever. Unfking believable. You can dismiss it as a fad for the lomo crowd but in the end, these are the people that actually do something for film whereas most of the vocal "film lovers" are happy killing film production by buying cheap expired stuff on ebay.

 

[Simonh82]

In the FAQs posted earlier, they seem to be quite upfront about the shortcomings of the film. I wish them good luck, just as I do anyone who wants to bring a new film to market.

I know it is repackaged and processed to remove the remjet rather than manufacturing themselves but the remjet would put me off the standard 500T film. It also means you can take it to a standard lab for processing which will appeal to many people.

Sometimes I think the APUG community assumes everyone is processing colour at home. It isn't hard but many people still aren't going to do it.

More film choices is never a bad thing!

Don't want it, don't buy it.

 

[AgX]

They(Cinestill) have talked directly with Kodak about this, and Kodak WILL NOT make a special order w/o remjet. PERIOD. No amount of money would sway that decision(what I was told directly by Brian & Brandon, they're personal friends of mine). Remjet serves multiple purposes, most importantly being the following: anti-halation backing, anti-static(motion picture cameras have a MUCH higher film transport speed than still cameras), and a protective backing for the base side of the film.

Well, is that the answer to expect from a manufacturer trying to keep their people busy and machines running in times of declining sales?

 

[Arctic amateur]

Perhaps Eastman doesn't think it is in their long-term interest to make an inferior product, but what others do to the product under another label isn't Eastman's problem.

 

[MartinP]

Kodak still make Portra 800 and that is better in pretty much all ways than the downgraded cine-film, plus the C41 chemical process Portra uses is accessible in every high street (in Europe anyway). The tungsten-balance benefit is not something that would affect more than a few users surely?

 

[hoffy]

What the heck is up with you guys? Someone has seen a gap in the market, come up with an idea and is trying to fund it. And the rest of you want to stick it in? I'm sure if there were easier alternatives to produce a Tungsten based c-41 processed film then they would have done it.

I like the idea of the film. If it gets off the ground, I'd love to shoot some ambient light shots with it to see what it does.

 

[Henning Serger]

What I don't get is this: Here we are in a film forum with people lamenting the death of whatever film dies this week and now that someone dares "make" a new one it gets dismissed as bs, "repackaging", lomo crap or whatever. Unfking believable. You can dismiss it as a fad for the lomo crowd but in the end, these are the people that actually do something for film whereas most of the vocal "film lovers" are happy killing film production by buying cheap expired stuff on ebay.

+1.
I have supported their Kickstarter and spread the word, so some photographer friends also joined in.
Here a market gapped is filled, and that is good.
The same is valid for the Ferrania Kickstarter.
Both are worth to be supported. Action from the photographers is needed, not endless lamenting on forums.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Ektagraphic]

So the Kickstarter was not funded, which I am sort of surprised about- but perhaps they were in need of too much $ to get started?

 

[mweintraub]

So the Kickstarter was not funded, which I am sort of surprised about- but perhaps they were in need of too much $ to get started?

Yeah, $300k+ seemed like a stretch.

 

[TheToadMen]

I did back them, but feared their goal was too high. Unfortunately it was.

 

[film_man]

Unfortunately they didn't make it. I think the main issue was that their international shipping was far too high, asking $20+ extra on a $20 pledge to send you a couple of rolls is just unreasonable, Ferannia could send worldwide for no extra cost so why couldn't Cinestill do it?

I know it is not like a pre-order service, you give money to support the project but I think Ferannia's success was that it effectively *was* like a preorder, you give them some money and they promise to send you film at a slightly higher rate than you'd normally get it in a shop. Cinestill effectively asked you to pay a lot more. I see they changed it eventually but that probably put a lot of people off and they wouldn't go back to check if they changed the postage so...

 

[Peter de Groot]

I think the main difference is that Cinestill only wants a lot of momey for 1 film. This is really specific and the market too small for this kind of film. Ferrania needs the same amount of money to be able to produce a lot more film in a lot more formats. Naturally there is a much bigger market for that and thus a bigger chance of reaching the target goal.

 

[Analog Swede]

I think the main difference is that Cinestill only wants a lot of momey for 1 film. This is really specific and the market too small for this kind of film. Ferrania needs the same amount of money to be able to produce a lot more film in a lot more formats. Naturally there is a much bigger market for that and thus a bigger chance of reaching the target goal.

+1

I was interested but the international shipping costs put me off. I will try some Kodak Vision3 500T though. I am not afraid of the rem jet backing!

I backed the Ferrania kickstarter and now I am waiting for my reward! Four rolls of 135 and four rolls of 120. I will shoot them all of course.