Cinestill 800t, what's it all about??

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
I was wondering what all the fuss was about the Cinestill films. Those that I asked to articulate what made it special to them didn't seem to be able to give me anything beyond, "well I think it has a funky look". Not very helpful.

I found this article and the author not only highlights what makes the film interesting to him, but also details his application methods and provides some rather pleasing photos.

Ummm, I wonder if you can get it in 4x5?
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
I shoot Vision3 500T at 800. It's the same thing but it does have the REMJET.

For me it's cheap and pushes very well. It's also the only high speed tungsten film on the market. Is there any other T balance still made? Anyhoo, I made my own Cinestill by pre-removing the REMJET. Just for kicks.

This was shot @ 400 and filtered with an 85 and an ND polarizer.



I developed in a C-41 kit that's way beyond suggested life. I like the results.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,696
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Since it's originally a Kodak cine stock (Vision 3 500T), it's not available in sheet film size.

Characteristics are reasonably fine grain and middle-of-the-road to low saturation. I've experimented quite a bit with these Vision3 films but have never gotten good color fidelity for optical RA4 prints (particularly blue/yellow crossover). It's probably fine for scanning. I'd recommend ECN2 processing as that's what the film is made for. My brief test with C41 development showed even to me totally unacceptable results with dramatic color shifts. If that's what you're after, obviously go for it, but it's not my cup of tea.

In the example shots of the page you linked to, note the sickly greenish color cast typical of Vision3 films cross processed in C41 and the pronounced halation as a result of Cinestill stripping the remjet backing from the film. I personally find neither characteristic a benefit, but YMMV.
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Eric I guess you are no "Newbee" from an age of 22 - yes?
Before you beat me next.....I tell you much to direct : That's what is it all about Cinestill800!

with regards

PS : It is a respectable aproach of one company to revife the todays film market! Beside the fact that this same company indends to make money with - but THAT is totally OK! Realy it is fine - we all do or have done within the past! (Make money)

PPS : But of course (most) of us are quite well knowing : ISO 800 is normal going in color since many years!

PPPS : Eric don't let discuss this issue soo much (younger people have a need to come to film)
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
T-type films

-) have higher effective speed at tungsten light than daylight films as one omits the otherwise necessary filter

-) in their still versions were optimized for long exposures up into seconds

-) in the cine version have lower contrast

-) in the Cinestill version lack any antihalation means

-) in the cine version need different developing agents
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format

Eric - to come back to your aproach on 4x5 (to feel like 22y again). :

I also shooting Cinestill 800 - I am not from yesterday !

As mentioned before there is no way with 4 x 5 inch (and you will not call Cinestill and ask about
70.000 sheeds I guess?) Remember that Kodak Vision film is made from larger format Masterolls - so theoretically 4 x 5 sheeds are possible !
But I guess Eric - therefore you would have a need of a greater order = > 70.000 sheeds..!

What about :

+

to come exactly to the look of Cinestill isn't possible (you allways need the original - imitations are never 100%)!

1) to imitate the lack of antihalation (you don't need this layer with Portra400 this film has its own
strategy to avoid halation of light!
how would it be with push 1?
Your contrast would come up that COULD imitate the glowing reds of Cinestill in parts! Look :


That are the glowing Reds (typical look from Cinnestill 800 here it is more white from massive overexposured highlights)!

So a push1 would also compensate your correction filters - but I would not push as high
to come to real ISO 800! (beside the fact that youngest shooters are often world master champions
from pushing films) we have not to prove Eric - or have we the need to do.....Damned I am also
not any longer 22yo... - but would I feel just a bit younger with push3???

with regards
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
5219 is probably Kodak's Most popular Movie film. it is rated at 500 Tungsten. and it comes with a Black Back Coating that is removed in the Movie process (ECN2)

CineStill gets the stock from Kodak and removes the backing. so anti-halation is not there any more. they say 800 daylight because that is within the latitude of the film, and the printing filtraion will be different for this anyway.

I used to use Movie film all the time back in the 1980s, it is great film, BUT it does have less contrast than still film. the widest Kodak sells it is 65mm perforated, BUT I suspect that the Cinestill folks may be able ot get it unperforated. if they order Quite a few thousand feet. if not their would be signs of the perfs on the edge of the film.

using 5219 directly you can't use a still lab as the black Back coating will come off in the processor making a mess.
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
Ive only shot 1 roll of 35mm to see what its like. Pretty noisey on 35mm, would be better on 120, 4x5 would be awesome.....if I had a way of printing that size in colour.
It seems best bright coloured lighting, you can warm it up a bit with a red filter on your flash.
 

Attachments

  • cinestil 800905.jpg
    869.5 KB · Views: 249
  • cinestil 800907 (3).jpg
    772.5 KB · Views: 250
  • cinestil 800908 (2).jpg
    761.9 KB · Views: 225
  • cinestil 800910 (2).jpg
    1 MB · Views: 339
  • cinestil 800911 (3).jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 244

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Not so bad - but different colors to 5219 from my point! I can't say much about colors of Cinestill
(just made night shots) now we may be curious about what Eric will state!

with regards

PS : If I state "not so bad" that's my way to say :FINE !
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
trendland said:
Not so bad - but different colors to 5219 from my point! I can't say much about colors of Cinestill
(just made night shots) now we may be curious about what Eric will state!

with regards

PS : If I state "not so bad" that's my way to say :FINE !
Click to expand...
Not so bad for a beginner with a $15 camera and a $90 lens. Probably get better colour saturation if I new how to use photoshop. I have another roll in the fridge I might try again sometime soon.
 

Attachments

  • cinestil 800912.jpg
    864.1 KB · Views: 150
  • cinestil 800916.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 167

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,388
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format
I used some rolls of Cinestill 800T from the Indiegogo camaping and develop in C-41 chemistry. Not impressed at all scanning or in the darkroom. Low contrast, some color crossover and grain at par with current photo negative films. I will not buy it again as I see no real advantages, better results with Portra films and a 80A filter.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
But low contrast just can be an advantage depending on situation or intended effect.
The same for the lacking of antihalation means.
And for cross processing.

Being aware of such features may make such film a additional tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
awty said:
Not so bad for a beginner with a $15 camera and a $90 lens. Probably get better colour saturation if I new how to use photoshop. I have another roll in the fridge I might try again sometime soon.
Click to expand...
Hmm regarding your "Brunswick" house thats the issue of c41 to ECN 2 film!
It is looking "not soo bad" again but to me (or is it from scanning and post production) these kind of colors I can't remember from Vision Films!
It is too much Celvin transformation than the ECN2 original "Thungsten" will serve!
BTW : I have less problems from Celvin 3200 lights with daylight films (for night shots exclusive)
NOT IN GENERAL of course! You then have a "artificial light athmospehere" wich let you feel
NORMAL! Here is one example (no it is not Vision film AND it is post production made )
but from a general example :



That is "Thungsten light" mixed with "Daylight (HMI)" and the yellow light in front is looking "normal"!

Here is a scene from overdriven look - but this is intended : (dramatically lighting)


Now pls. regard your pic. I mentioned again : Your color temperature is most correct
but it looks real " artificiell " - that seams to be what some stated in regard of
Cinestill800 : "The difference in colors - caused from c41 development to Ecn2 Films"

with regards

PS : But I am not sure about - it could also have a couple of other reasons !
 

macfred

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
3,839
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format

Some of my results in 35mm - Nikon F4 - Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S
Cinestil 800T @ box speed - captured at Britec Motorsports.
A little warming up with filters could be nice.
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format

Toasty

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
50
Location
California
Format
35mm RF
I have some short ends of v3 500T and my results have been mixed. So far the best I've gotten was shooting at 1000 and pushing a stop chemically with Flexicolor. The other times I have tried shooting at box speed (500) it hasn't turned out great (weird colors, very grainy) so maybe the standard times/temp with c41 just isn't enough. I was hoping to have a super cheap alternative to portra to mess around with but I'm hesitant to keep experimenting.
 

lantau

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
826
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Toasty said:
I was hoping to have a super cheap alternative to portra to mess around with but I'm hesitant to keep experimenting.
Click to expand...

I don't recommend using Vision3 films when it is primarily about using cheap film. I bought a 400ft roll of 500T just under six months into my film adventure. I was fascinated by a couple of articles. It's all about the overall learning experience and playing with this material for its own sake.

It was the first time I handled bulk film. I had to rollup film from the large roll into my hands so that I could load it into the bulk loader, which takes max 100ft. I was surprisingly easy. Thanks to this and doing Remjet removal in the dark I've become fairly confident working in total darkness. That helped me when I started printint RA4.

I soon began mixing ECN2 dev and eventually switched to removing remjet outside the tank before developing. I too had very grainy pictures in C41 developer. Can't say much about the colour because only a few weeks ago I finally started getting good results with digicam scanning colour film. Thanks to a colour balancing macro sold by a photrio member.

I believe it is possible that grain is also caused by removing remjet inside the tank as part of the developing process. It is vicious stuff. At least I never felt confident with that method. Tiny remjet particles could embed in the surface of the emulsion.

Also be aware that it cannot be RA4 printed, should you want to do that at some point. I did one short test a few weeks ago and it looked like a faded or bleached image. I tried the trick with with double RA4 development and that did make quite a difference. But I think I would need to adjust the exposure and didn't have the time to do go on for now. Other urgent prints are having priority at the moment.

I'd love to print Vision3 onto cine print film. But putting down $275 for a massive 1000ft roll is a bit much. I don't have enough freezer space left for a big roll like that. At the moment I can't find CD2 either. But if I end up being lucky one day I'll do that.

Hybrid workflow is a great resource, but I feel I can only trust to see that supposed 'look' of a given colour film stock when printing in the darkroom. Only then I can *try* to adjust my hybrid pictures to show a somewhat realistic rendition. With that new colour macro I'll start working on that for C41/RA4, now. But if you're not a lone wolf in the darkroom, like me, it's great when others can help there and give you good reference images.

With regards to 500T (and 50D, 250D, which I also have) I'll be sampling a few of my older imgages again soon and see what look I'll get with that new inversion method.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,696
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
lantau said:
Also be aware that it cannot be RA4 printed, should you want to do that at some point.
Click to expand...
Yes it can, but with pronounced color shifts. As you noticed, you also have to develop longer (4m30 instead of 3m00 ECN2) to get the required density.
I've tried a few things to get the color balance right, but I didn't succeed.
 

newcan1

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
719
Location
Chattanooga
Format
35mm
lantau said:
Also be aware that it cannot be RA4 printed, should you want to do that at some point.
Click to expand...

I always develop ECN-2 film in ECN-2 chems for 5 minutes development time instead of the published 3. That, plus adding H2O2 to the RA4 developer, increases print contrast and can give prints similar to those I have obtained using Portra as the film. I have not noticed any color shifts.
 

lantau

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
826
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
Yes it can, but with pronounced color shifts. As you noticed, you also have to develop longer (4m30 instead of 3m00 ECN2) to get the required density.
I've tried a few things to get the color balance right, but I didn't succeed.
Click to expand...


Actually I meant the RA4 exposure. After fixing and bleaching in Ferricyanide, followed by a second pass in the RA4 dev the image was too dark, the colours not brilliant. If I'm lucky it will look right with reduced exposure. The colours looks right as far as I could judge that at this stage. So there is hope. But it is a lot more work and I have to squeeze two trays onto my small table.

I'm using a slot processor, which saves much needed space. Because I have such a beauty I'm replenishing. That rules out the H2O2 method.

I meant RA4 printing is impossible if you want to keep processing your C41 negatives. Tricks like above may or may not work someone. And I didn't go all the way to run the proper ECN2 process to then pressure cook the film by routinely pushing it. If I did manage to get the materials to print on release film then all my old images would be unusable.

Of course these are a matters of preference and, hence, deeply personal choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…