Cinestill 800T Issues

[fdonadio]

Pos-Pos prints are probably the worst route you could take.

No Joke!

PE

Ron,


I hope you didn't think my joke was on you. it was just me trying to be creatively funny...


Flavio

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was responding in kind, and took your comment as a joke. No problem at all.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

I was responding in kind, and took your comment as a joke. No problem at all.

PE

Great! I'm off to my darkroom to spool some Vision 2 and load my daylight loader, then! And I mean it!

Flavio

 

[Ten301]

Pre-removal of the remjet backing does not address the issue that Cinestill films are not designed to be processed in C41, therefore they are not truly C41 compatible. While I appreciate the company's efforts in removing the backing, and while the results in C41 may be acceptable to some, the fact remains that motion picture film processed in its proper ECN-2 chemistry is far superior to any results possible cross-processed in C41. The main selling point of Cinestill films is the impression that the consumer can get nearly all the quality advantages of motion picture stocks now that they can be conveniently processed in C41. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The image quality of Kodak Vision 3 stocks processed in C41, while many times acceptable and sometimes even very good, still does not come close to what the films are capable of yielding in their native ECN-2 chemistry.

That is the problem I have with the marketing of Cinestill, as it seems they want the consumer to believe the remjet backing is the only practical difference between motion picture film cross-processed in C41 and that, with the exception of some possible halation and a slight gamma increase, the film will basically retain the image quality Kodak intended and designed into the film. That was what I believed, and it was only after disappointing results and considerable digging online that I discovered otherwise. In fact, even the name, "Cinestill", seems to imply to the consumer that the motion picture image quality will be retained. And what about archival stability of a film developed in a process for which it was never intended? Does Kodak have reliable data on this? Has Cinestill conducted scientific testing? Another issue I question is the naming of the film: Cinestill 800T. It's true that other films, such as Fujifilm Superia X-tra 800, are probably closer to a true ISO of 640, although we'll likely never hear that officially from Fuji, and they just rely on the film's latitude. However, in the case of Cinestill, we know it isn't a true 800 ISO film because we know the source stock: Kodak Vision 3 500T. Regardless of a slight push the film receives when processed in C41 (which still doesn't approach a true speed of 800), why not just call it Cinestill 500T since we do know its true identity and the uninformed consumer would likely get better results at that speed, regardless of the film's latitude? When you combine underexposure with cross-processing, you're getting even more distant from Kodak's intended image quality goals for this film, further from the implied motion picture film quality, and more likely to have a disappointed consumer.

I believe this to be a bit of a missed opportunity, perhaps not for the company's bottom line, but for the consumer. Other than the ability to more easily home and commercial cross-process without the remjet backing (which is a considerable advantage for some), if Cinestill wanted to go down the 'motion picture film in still cameras' route, just think of the results had they offered genuine ECN-2 processing and a high-res scanning service instead of marketing the film, in effect, as C41 compatible? The results from these films would be amazing. As PE has mentioned, they were designed to look good on a theater screen, so it's obvious that we're losing a lot in terms of image quality when these films are cross-processed in C41. They also would have likely captured most of the processing business from people buying respooled motion picture film online from various sources, as they would have been the only lab (to my knowledge) offering ECN-2 processing of short rolls. I've been looking for a lab that will process short roll motion picture stock in ECN-2 but, so far, no luck. We have a motion picture lab here in the Boston area that I understand used to be willing to do it, but not any more.

Please understand that it has not been my intention to criticize Cinestill, but only to add my thoughts and highlight what seems to me to be some questionable marketing of their products.

 

[Rudeofus]

Ten301, while most points you brought up are perfectly valid, I would like to point out a few things where I disagree:

the fact remains that motion picture film processed in its proper ECN-2 chemistry is far superior to any results possible cross-processed in C41

This depends strongly on what you try to achieve. The image posted by Markus Jork here is absolutely breath taking, not withstanding its theoretical faults coming from cross processing and its lack of remjet backing. Cinestill gave him an extra option which he used to great advantage.

The main selling point of Cinestill films is the impression that the consumer can get nearly all the quality advantages of motion picture stocks now that they can be conveniently processed in C41

I did not see this claim. I would, however, define the main selling point of Cinestill 800T the fact that it's almost two stops faster than Superia/Portra 800 in tungsten lighting. When I load this film into my camera, I think "I'll take pictures of this indoor school event with my kids in", not "if I take pictures with this film they'll look like movie stars".

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The image quality of Kodak Vision 3 stocks processed in C41, while many times acceptable and sometimes even very good, still does not come close to what the films are capable of yielding in their native ECN-2 chemistry.

I can't comment on what this film looks like if processed in C-41 chems, since I always mix my own ECN-2 chems, the recipes have been published by Kodak themselves. At the same time we should not underestimate what digital post processing can do in terms of contrast and color correction. Ancient horror stories about color cross over and hue errors turn into minor processing efforts if you don't optically enlarge, and let's be honest: very few of us here do enlarge optically.

And what about archival stability of a film developed in a process for which it was never intended? Does Kodak have reliable data on this?

That's a very valid point, and one that most likely won't be addressed by Kodak. Looking at PE's responses I'd rather say that Vision 500T processed in C-41 chems is not long term stable. It's still better than not being able to take images at all, because light is tungsten balanced and insufficient for ISO 160. My impression is that most folks here decrying Cinestill 800T quietly whip out their digicams when these lighting situations occur.

Another issue I question is the naming of the film: Cinestill 800T. It's true that other films, such as Fujifilm Superia X-tra 800, are probably closer to a true ISO of 640, although we'll likely never hear that officially from Fuji, and they just rely on the film's latitude.

A film's latitude doesn't improve sensitivity. I guess the reasoning behind 800T goes more along the line of Ilford Delta 3200: it's not an ISO 3200 emulsion by any stretch, but if you shoot it at EI 3200 you can get decent results.

Has Cinestill conducted scientific testing?
[...]
just think of the results had they offered genuine ECN-2 processing and a high-res scanning service

I have the impression that you vastly overestimate the size of Cinestill as a business. When they wanted to order a coating of Vision 500T on a base suitable for 120 roll film, and we know that Kodak's coating machine is not exactly overused to say the least, they started and failed a low six digit amount kick starter campaign. To me this sounds like a guy removing remjet and filling cartridges in his basement, not a big corporation making a killing off of unsuspecting "I want them to look like Hollywood" shooters.

 

[KidA]

Ok so how do we get the proper developer to work these wonders on our colour film? Can I see some images of ECN-2 processed movie film uploaded? Anyone have any?

I'd like to know, what is it exactly what's lacking in say something like Ektar 100 vs Vision 50D? (<--- or whatever the latter is called). I hear about this amazing latitude/shadow detail stuff, but is it really something we are not allowed to touch if we're only limiting ourselves to 'proper' C-41 processes? Or is it a myth that the moving pictures have better stuff? Seriously, if we're to negate the fact that there are no C-41 tungsten film left out there, is there even a real advantage…is the grain really better? Is the latitude really better? Is it perhaps that movies are constantly paying extra attention to their lighting, like a professional photographer does - or at least should do; do the great colour photographers complain about the 'better movie stuff?' If the answer is in fact that yes, ECN-2 is superior to C-41, why is this the case? Wouldn't any fool think that it would be easier and more economically feasible to make still film better than movie film as there is far less of the still film being used.

I'm seriously asking these questions. My comment may come off as sarcastic, but it's not.

Also, regarding film grain in movies vs still: even though 35mm Cinema has a smaller frame than a still's full-frame, the grain is so 'hidden' in the movie because the grain patterns are always scattered at random. So even a strip of our C-41 film, if projected on a screen, moving at 24 frames per second would show far less grain than viewing one of the stills from this very strip for longer than 1/24th of a second.

I'm speaking from a theoretical point of view. I don't have any experience with ECN-2 films, other than scanned blu-rays of some movies; compared to shooting, developing and getting to hold my own C-41 films.

 

[Ten301]

Ten301, while most points you brought up are perfectly valid, I would like to point out a few things where I disagree:

This depends strongly on what you try to achieve. The image posted by Markus Jork here is absolutely breath taking, not withstanding its theoretical faults coming from cross processing and its lack of remjet backing. Cinestill gave him an extra option which he used to great advantage.

I did not see this claim. I would, however, define the main selling point of Cinestill 800T the fact that it's almost two stops faster than Superia/Portra 800 in tungsten lighting. When I load this film into my camera, I think "I'll take pictures of this indoor school event with my kids in", not "if I take pictures with this film they'll look like movie stars".

I can't comment on what this film looks like if processed in C-41 chems, since I always mix my own ECN-2 chems, the recipes have been published by Kodak themselves. At the same time we should not underestimate what digital post processing can do in terms of contrast and color correction. Ancient horror stories about color cross over and hue errors turn into minor processing efforts if you don't optically enlarge, and let's be honest: very few of us here do enlarge optically.

That's a very valid point, and one that most likely won't be addressed by Kodak. Looking at PE's responses I'd rather say that Vision 500T processed in C-41 chems is not long term stable. It's still better than not being able to take images at all, because light is tungsten balanced and insufficient for ISO 160. My impression is that most folks here decrying Cinestill 800T quietly whip out their digicams when these lighting situations occur.

A film's latitude doesn't improve sensitivity. I guess the reasoning behind 800T goes more along the line of Ilford Delta 3200: it's not an ISO 3200 emulsion by any stretch, but if you shoot it at EI 3200 you can get decent results.

I have the impression that you vastly overestimate the size of Cinestill as a business. When they wanted to order a coating of Vision 500T on a base suitable for 120 roll film, and we know that Kodak's coating machine is not exactly overused to say the least, they started and failed a low six digit amount kick starter campaign. To me this sounds like a guy removing remjet and filling cartridges in his basement, not a big corporation making a killing off of unsuspecting "I want them to look like Hollywood" shooters.

Ten301, while most points you brought up are perfectly valid, I would like to point out a few things where I disagree:

This depends strongly on what you try to achieve. The image posted by Markus Jork here is absolutely breath taking, not withstanding its theoretical faults coming from cross processing and its lack of remjet backing. Cinestill gave him an extra option which he used to great advantage.

I did not see this claim. I would, however, define the main selling point of Cinestill 800T the fact that it's almost two stops faster than Superia/Portra 800 in tungsten lighting. When I load this film into my camera, I think "I'll take pictures of this indoor school event with my kids in", not "if I take pictures with this film they'll look like movie stars".

I can't comment on what this film looks like if processed in C-41 chems, since I always mix my own ECN-2 chems, the recipes have been published by Kodak themselves. At the same time we should not underestimate what digital post processing can do in terms of contrast and color correction. Ancient horror stories about color cross over and hue errors turn into minor processing efforts if you don't optically enlarge, and let's be honest: very few of us here do enlarge optically.

That's a very valid point, and one that most likely won't be addressed by Kodak. Looking at PE's responses I'd rather say that Vision 500T processed in C-41 chems is not long term stable. It's still better than not being able to take images at all, because light is tungsten balanced and insufficient for ISO 160. My impression is that most folks here decrying Cinestill 800T quietly whip out their digicams when these lighting situations occur.

A film's latitude doesn't improve sensitivity. I guess the reasoning behind 800T goes more along the line of Ilford Delta 3200: it's not an ISO 3200 emulsion by any stretch, but if you shoot it at EI 3200 you can get decent results.

I have the impression that you vastly overestimate the size of Cinestill as a business. When they wanted to order a coating of Vision 500T on a base suitable for 120 roll film, and we know that Kodak's coating machine is not exactly overused to say the least, they started and failed a low six digit amount kick starter campaign. To me this sounds like a guy removing remjet and filling cartridges in his basement, not a big corporation making a killing off of unsuspecting "I want them to look like Hollywood" shooters.

Please allow me to clarify...

My post was referring to CineStill marketing as a whole, not only to the marketing of CineStill 800T. While I agree that the motivation of a knowledgeable consumer would likely be more utilitarian than aesthetic when reaching for CineStill 800T, the company's other readily available offering is CineStill 50D, sourced from Kodak Vision 3 50D motion picture stock.

Whenever I look at at how a company markets its products, whether it be photographic film, laundry detergent or anything else, I always try to see it from the perspective of a 'newbie'; someone with limited knowledge of the product they are searching for. In the case of CineStill, as many big retailers no longer carry film and most local brick and mortar camera stores have vanished from the face of the planet, that person would likely be someone starting out in film photography, perusing online retailers and trying to make sense out of what to feed the old, one-eyed beast they found in their grandfather's closet or snagged on an auction site. They may have a basic idea of 'Slow film/bright light, fast film/low light', but that's about it. This person knows nothing about terms such as "crossover" or "post-processing", nor are they interested. Five or so years ago, these are the people who would have simply dropped their film off at the corner drugstore to be processed. Now they're likely, for lack of other options, to drop it in the mail. These are the individuals I started with in my thought process, but even progressed to advanced amateurs, when I stated that I believe CineStill's marketing is "questionable". I also base it on my personal experience with their films and the results I've seen these films are capable of processed in the correct chemistry. However, I cannot say it better than the tech at a cine film lab I visited to see if they would process my respooled Kodak Vision 3 and Fujifilm Eterna Vivid short rolls (they wouldn't, by the way): "Well, yeah...you can even soup slide film in C41 and you'll get an image, but..."

My issue with CineStill's marketing is not so much what they implicitly state, but what they certainly imply. From their website:

"...Today, CineStill brings the wonders of cinema film technology to the still photographer. Now, anyone can use film in the same lighting situations as new blockbuster movies and TV shows such as Inception, Argo, Lincoln, all of the Batman movies, Django Unchained, Man of Steel, Les Misérables, The Master, the new Star Track films, the forthcoming Star Wars films, all Wes Anderson's films, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, Castle, True Blood, American Horror Story, 30 Rock, and the list goes on and on and on..."

And this about their new Kodak Double-X offering (which isn't manufactured with a remjet backing to begin with) :

"Double-X is a classic black and white film stock left relatively unchanged since it's release in 1959 for still and motion picture use. Some of the movies using the classic Eastman double-x film stock (5222) include: Schindler's List (1993), Memento (2000), Kafka (1991), Casino Royale (2006), I'm Not There (2007), and many many more."

And this:

"CineStill Film is motion picture film, which is modified and packaged for standard still photography lab processing. It harnesses the same outstanding performance and aesthetics found in many blockbuster films produced today, plus it is optimized for still photography workflows."

Okay, I think the not-so-subtle implication is clear: 'If you use CineStill film, the results from your dusty Ebay find will look like something from a J.J. Abrams or Quentin Tarantino movie'. Of course, even forgetting the inferior equipment for a moment, they fail to mention those films (with the exception of Double-X) were professionally processed in the chemistry the film was designed for, ECN-2, having image quality that cannot be approached by soaking the film in C41, even with post-processing, and even then the results are no match for the results when processed in the film's native ECN-2. Now, if we add this to CineStill's ability to take an EI 500 film out of a master roll, cut it down, put it in a 35mm cassette and magically transform it into an EI 800 film, I think we have good reason to question the company's marketing.

 

[MattKing]

Ok so how do we get the proper developer to work these wonders on our colour film? Can I see some images of ECN-2 processed movie film uploaded? Anyone have any?

I'd like to know, what is it exactly what's lacking in say something like Ektar 100 vs Vision 50D? (<--- or whatever the latter is called). I hear about this amazing latitude/shadow detail stuff, but is it really something we are not allowed to touch if we're only limiting ourselves to 'proper' C-41 processes? Or is it a myth that the moving pictures have better stuff? Seriously, if we're to negate the fact that there are no C-41 tungsten film left out there, is there even a real advantage…is the grain really better? Is the latitude really better? Is it perhaps that movies are constantly paying extra attention to their lighting, like a professional photographer does - or at least should do; do the great colour photographers complain about the 'better movie stuff?' If the answer is in fact that yes, ECN-2 is superior to C-41, why is this the case? Wouldn't any fool think that it would be easier and more economically feasible to make still film better than movie film as there is far less of the still film being used.

I'm seriously asking these questions. My comment may come off as sarcastic, but it's not.

Also, regarding film grain in movies vs still: even though 35mm Cinema has a smaller frame than a still's full-frame, the grain is so 'hidden' in the movie because the grain patterns are always scattered at random. So even a strip of our C-41 film, if projected on a screen, moving at 24 frames per second would show far less grain than viewing one of the stills from this very strip for longer than 1/24th of a second.

I'm speaking from a theoretical point of view. I don't have any experience with ECN-2 films, other than scanned blu-rays of some movies; compared to shooting, developing and getting to hold my own C-41 films.

The Vision films are very good. But I'm not sure they are any better for still work than the latest versions of Portra, or Ektra (which incorporate many of the technological advancements that were designed for the Vision films).

They aren't designed for optical printing on to paper - their contrast is too low. They are designed for either scanning, or for contact printing on to projection stock. If your goal is to produce still transparencies for projection, they may be the best technical option out there, but it is questionable whether the market exists to support enough of that.

Their advantage is that they are available in a variety of different emulsions, and they are still being produced in (relatively) huge volumes.

You have to remember though that ECN processing is a lot like Kodachrome - it is set up for motion picture types of volumes. And those volumes are not the sort of thing that your neighbourhood mini-lab are set up for.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The cine films are the basis for Ektar 100 film. The difference is in contrast and latitude among other things such as sharpness and grain.

The cine films are designed to be projected on wall sized screens with a huge lighting range. They are designed to be printed on a print film, not on paper, and thus prints will appear desaturated unless they are given a "digital" boost of some sort.

Ektar will give just about everything anyone wants. The Portra family supplies the rest.

PE

 

[rwreich]

The cine films are the basis for Ektar 100 film. The difference is in contrast and latitude among other things such as sharpness and grain.

The cine films are designed to be projected on wall sized screens with a huge lighting range. They are designed to be printed on a print film, not on paper, and thus prints will appear desaturated unless they are given a "digital" boost of some sort.

Ektar will give just about everything anyone wants. The Portra family supplies the rest.

PE

What is Kodak going to use when they process all of that film from the new super-8 camera? I assume that it'll be ECN. Is there any chance that Kodak would consider short run development of cinema films since they're already gearing up for this in super-8?

 

[ericdan]

Do we really need to make these motion picture films work in still when we have Portra and Ektar already?
Portra and Ektar look pretty damn good to me, scanned and enlarged on RA4.

Vision 3 stuff might be tungsten balanced, but what does that matter when you have color shifts from the cross processing anyhow?
I haven't really had major issues fixing the white balance of daylight balanced C-41 film indoors.
When scanned it either auto corrects in the software or you can do "auto white balance" in Lightroom.
When I print it wet I just use Dead Link Removed to get rid of color shifts.

 

[Rudeofus]

From their website:

"...Today, CineStill brings the wonders of cinema film technology to the still photographer. Now, anyone can use film in the same lighting situations as new blockbuster movies and TV shows such as Inception, Argo, Lincoln, all of the Batman movies, Django Unchained, Man of Steel, Les Misérables, The Master, the new Star Track films, the forthcoming Star Wars films, all Wes Anderson's films, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, Castle, True Blood, American Horror Story, 30 Rock, and the list goes on and on and on..."

I agree with you, this marketing statement is complete nonsense, and likely going to mislead newbies. It is well known that these movies were shot with Vision 3 film, but then heavily edited to match the director's vision, and some of the content in these movies is computer generated. It shall also be noted that these movies were shot on Vision 3 stock with the remjet backing in place, and they were not crossprocessed in C-41 soup.

And this about their new Kodak Double-X offering (which isn't manufactured with a remjet backing to begin with) :

"Double-X is a classic black and white film stock left relatively unchanged since it's release in 1959 for still and motion picture use. Some of the movies using the classic Eastman double-x film stock (5222) include: Schindler's List (1993), Memento (2000), Kafka (1991), Casino Royale (2006), I'm Not There (2007), and many many more."

Can't complain about this one. Double-X won't get cross processed and seems to have a regular anti halation layer, so this one won't suffer from the defects we can expect with Cinestill 800T or 50D.

"CineStill Film is motion picture film, which is modified and packaged for standard still photography lab processing. It harnesses the same outstanding performance and aesthetics found in many blockbuster films produced today, plus it is optimized for still photography workflows."

You have to see modern color film as two things: it's a T-grained black and white emulsion sensitized with the most advanced dyes to become highly sensitive (think ISO performance) and very, very fine grained, and this advantage won't go away if you cross process. The second aspect are the couplers included in the product, which give you stable dyes (assuming correct color developer is used) and improved sharpness and grain (from DIR couplers etc.). If you cross process, you lose the second advantage but mostly retain the first.

In terms of sensitization, the Ektar and Portra films use pretty much the same technology. If souped in C-41, Portra/Ektar should give you better overall results than Vision 3 movie stock, except when you actually want the odd colors you get from cross processed Vision 3, or when you really need true ISO 500 in tungsten light.

@KidA: one of my gallery shots is CineStill 800T shot in daylight, processed in ECN-2 process chemistry, and optically enlarged onto RA-4 paper.

 

[Devlog]

Kodak still sells the chemicals and the formulas are published, if you're willing to mix from scratch.

I'd really like to know where to get ECN-2 chemicals here in Europe (Berlin), how much are they? - and also would like to get educated how to use it properly.

 

[AgX]

It is offered by sveral manufacturers, but only in bulk quantaties (>100L)

 

[Rudeofus]

I'd really like to know where to get ECN-2 chemicals here in Europe (Berlin), how much are they? - and also would like to get educated how to use it properly.

Since you likely won't need 100 liters of process chemistry at a time, youe safest bet would be self mixing the stuff, recipes can be found here.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can't comment on what this film looks like if processed in C-41 chems, since I always mix my own ECN-2 chems, the recipes have been published by Kodak themselves. At the same time we should not underestimate what digital post processing can do in terms of contrast and color correction. Ancient horror stories about color cross over and hue errors turn into minor processing efforts if you don't optically enlarge, and let's be honest: very few of us here do enlarge optically.

That's a very valid point, and one that most likely won't be addressed by Kodak. Looking at PE's responses I'd rather say that Vision 500T processed in C-41 chems is not long term stable. It's still better than not being able to take images at all, because light is tungsten balanced and insufficient for ISO 160. My impression is that most folks here decrying Cinestill 800T quietly whip out their digicams when these lighting situations occur.

Well some of us want to print optically again. And if I don't intend to enlarge optically and I intend to mess around with pixel pushing programs, then I don't see any reason to start off with film in the first place, especially not one with so many compromises. Just shoot it natively as pixels with the speed setting you need and custom white balance and be done with it.

I understand those doing what I want to do again shooting optical/film all the way from camera to print, like many of us do in black and white. And I understand, to an extent, those using hybrid modes because they find the results superior to or at least different from anything they can achieve in a non-hybrid manner and whose vision fits those results. And I understand shooting this stuff when the lack of anti-halation and perhaps "off" color might be aesthetically pleasing as in the image posted above. But to just shoot Cinestill and then use a computer program to make it look "normal?" That strikes me as oddly and uselessly Procrustean, like mounting an outboard on a bathtub when you want a boat and could have just bought a boat.

 

[ME Super]

It's still the only product in this ISO range which is balanced for tungsten light. Few people would bother with it if there was a Portra 800T, but there isn't, and it's not likely to happen any time soon either.

There's also the possibility of relighting the scene in some circumstances. For example:

This is my daughter, on Christmas eve 2015. Portra 400 shot at EI 3200 and pushed 3 stops (yes I know, PE says don't push C-41). There's a slight green cast in the flesh tones (easily fixed using techniques which are verboten to discuss on APUG), but I shot this under 5000K LED bulbs, available at the local big box store.

You can't relight every scene though, but this one worked pretty well, I think. Next time, I think I'll just use Portra 800, underexpose 2 stops, no push, as PE suggested, and see what develops (pun intended). In cases where you can't relight the scene, there's definitely a need for a high speed tungsten balanced film. For now, unless you are willing to mix your own ECN-2 chemistry, XPro in C-41 is the only game in town. If you don't do your own processing, then CineStill is probably still (no pun intended) the only game in town for Tungsten balanced film.

I'm actually considering doing a couple test shots on daylight E6 under these same circumstances, just to see how much color correction actually happened in the scans.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tungsten light has a high red emission. Much higher than some people think. And, it has a low blue emission, also lower than most people think. Therefore, a tungsten balanced film has a "normal" red speed, a high speed green and an ultra high speed blue. Fortunately, the eye is not sensitive very much to yellow grain so it does not look too bad. But this is why there are so few Tungsten films. They are extraordinarily difficult to make and also to balance for the different types of tungsten bulbs out there.

PE

 

[Ten301]

How about Fujicolor Superia X-tra 800? While it's not a tungsten film, it does seem to do relatively well in mixed lighting with it's "4th color layer", although its not as fast as CineStill under tungsten. Since either film will require a bit of post-processing, it might be an acceptable alternative. Plus (at least until Fuji does yet another 'round of price hikes) it's less expensive.

 

[Rudeofus]

How about Fujicolor Superia X-tra 800? While it's not a tungsten film, it does seem to do relatively well in mixed lighting with it's "4th color layer", although its not as fast as CineStill under tungsten. Since either film will require a bit of post-processing, it might be an acceptable alternative. Plus (at least until Fuji does yet another 'round of price hikes) it's less expensive.

Superia 800 is an ISO 640 emulsion, which makes it an effective ISO 160 emulsion in tungsten light. Shooting it @EI 800 effectively creates a 2 1/2 stop underexposure in the blue channel. While the colors in ME Super's pic look mostly right, its dark gray areas are extremely noisy. Well, that's what you get from a three stop underexposure.

It is trivial to fix color cross over and bad contrast in digital post, at least compared to cleaning up noisy dark areas or restoring missing shadow detail. BTDT.

 

[Devlog]

Superia 800 is an ISO 640 emulsion, which makes it an effective ISO 160 emulsion in tungsten light.

So shooting Superia 800 in tungsten light is an effective ISO 160 - and with an 85B filter attached it's even -1,5 EV, so it's round about ISO 50 or ISO 100? And with Portra 800 it's the same?

 

[Rudeofus]

So shooting Superia 800 in tungsten light is an effective ISO 160 - and with an 85B filter attached it's even -1,5 EV, so it's round about ISO 50 or ISO 100? And with Portra 800 it's the same?

If you shoot Superia 800 in tungsten light, incident blue light will be about two full stops weaker than red light. Since your light meter doesn't care about light wavelength, it will expose for the dominant, i.e. red light channel. You have three options:

1. Shoot at EI 640: this will correctly expose the red channel, underexpose green by one stop and blue by two stops.
   
2. Shoot at EI 160: this will correctly expose blue channel, and give green channel an one stop, and red channel a two stops overexposure, which the emulsion will handle very gracefully
3. Use an 80A filter and shoot at EI 160: this will expose all three color channels correctly.

 

[wildbill]

Someone asked to see movie film processed in ECN. Here's 5274 I shot in 2001 with an 85 filter. I loved this combo.

I should have taken that saw blade, they demolished this place a week later. We had one just like it on our sawmill growing up.

 

[Roger Cole]

Are those negative scans rather than scans of optical prints?

Bottom line for me is that even if I could get it properly ECN-2 processed, if it doesn't optically print well then I have no use for it.

 

[wildbill]

scans of the negatives. RGB lab in hollywood provided you your negs, box of slides, and a free roll of film with every roll you dropped off.