Cinestill launches Kodak Double-X in 120

Wallendo · May 29, 2021

Ernst-Jan said:
Made in Rochester for sure, but finishing I don't know. The spools looks more like Foma/Ilford (and former Agfa) than Kodak to me.

When they had their Cinestill 800T indiegogo campaign, Cinestill mentioned that their film was sent to Europe for finishing. I assume this new film is made the same way.

I am interested in how Cinestill products fit in with the Eastman Kodak - Kodak Alaris relationship. Is there some loophole that lets EK sell film to a KA competitor? Does EK pretend that Cinestill is making movies? Does KA not consider Cinestill a competitor?
I suspect that allowing EK to finish the film is not allowed.

Bill Burk · May 29, 2021

Adrian Bacon said:
I ordered 50 units for my store. It should be in my hands early-mid next week.

Take requests? I will need time-contrast curves for D-76 1:1

Adrian Bacon · May 29, 2021

Huss said:
Do you have a brick and mortar store? Or mail order?
If actual physical store, another reason for me to visit Petaluma!

yes. I sell on Amazon and eBay, and have a local online retail front where you can order and have it shipped to you or do curbside pickup, or just do a walk-in, though I don’t have a lot of hours of availability for walk-in as I still have kids that are distance learning.

Adrian Bacon · May 29, 2021

Bill Burk said:
Take requests? I will need time-contrast curves for D-76 1:1

sure, but I’ll have to actually be able to keep it in stock first. I’ve been selling the 35mm version of it for a while and it gets sold about as fast as I can get it in. I’ve been upping my order quantity every time I order it. So far it’s been a pretty brisk seller.

MattKing · May 29, 2021

Wallendo said:
I am interested in how Cinestill products fit in with the Eastman Kodak - Kodak Alaris relationship. Is there some loophole that lets EK sell film to a KA competitor?

Interesting questions.
I expect that the fact that it is both not sold as Kodak film, and is identified as movie film stock, probably means that Kodak Alaris can't complain.
I don't think there is anything to stop Eastman Kodak from contract coating for other vendors, as long as they aren't contract coating a Kodak branded still film.

Jarin Blaschke · May 29, 2021

Kodak does not make DoubleX in 65mm format, and the special order fees and minimum quantity order would be exorbitant. What is their source for this film?

I personally prefer TriX and FP4 to Double X, but the latter is the only one available in 35mm motion picture rolls. But, Double X does look a bit better if you give a little extra exposure, reduce development a little bit and print harder to compensate.

braxus · May 30, 2021

Jarin Blaschke said:
Kodak does not make DoubleX in 65mm format, and the special order fees and minimum quantity order would be exorbitant. What is their source for this film?

I personally prefer TriX and FP4 to Double X, but the latter is the only one available in 35mm motion picture rolls. But, Double X does look a bit better if you give a little extra exposure, reduce development a little bit and print harder to compensate.

I'd be curious how the managed to get this film in 120 as well.

What exposure ISO did you use and developing time in what?

Raghu Kuvempunagar · May 30, 2021

Perhaps CineStill should consider reselling XP2 Super as a ISO 200 conventional B&W film with a fancy name and a double digit dollar price. It will surely generate a lot of interest and of course give great results.

Adrian Bacon · May 30, 2021

Wallendo said:
When they had their Cinestill 800T indiegogo campaign, Cinestill mentioned that their film was sent to Europe for finishing. I assume this new film is made the same way.

I am interested in how Cinestill products fit in with the Eastman Kodak - Kodak Alaris relationship. Is there some loophole that lets EK sell film to a KA competitor? Does EK pretend that Cinestill is making movies? Does KA not consider Cinestill a competitor?
I suspect that allowing EK to finish the film is not allowed.

I doubt it. Cinestill is selling the emulsions into a market that Kodak isn’t. Cinestill isn’t even a competitor. In order to be a competitor, both have to sell into the same market and compete for the same buyers. That isn’t happening and likely never will, given the modifications needed to remove the remjet backing. I’d be surprised if Kodak has an agreement to make the stuff with no remjet. For all we know, cinestill is just buying master rolls and having them converted to 35mm and 120, then removing the remjet and packaging it still cameras.

brbo · May 30, 2021

There is no remjet on Double-X and EK already sells regular C-41 film to a direct KA competitor (Lomography).

Tom Kershaw · May 30, 2021

Jarin Blaschke said:
Kodak does not make DoubleX in 65mm format, and the special order fees and minimum quantity order would be exorbitant. What is their source for this film?

This is one of the many questions that puts me off buying some of these obscurely sourced films. BTW) I saw 'The Lighthouse' a few weeks ago on Blu-Ray, atmospheric and surprising, thought the use of vintage lenses worked well. Also enjoyed the fact you went for a 'clean' look rather than dust and scratches everywhere.

Tom

AgX · May 30, 2021

None of us knows the details of the Kodak / Pension Fund contract, but we can assume that it prohibited Kodak to market consumer film, still film that is.
I guess the still film market was of that little importance to the Pension Fund people that they did not even consider a detail as prohibiting Kodak from selling film to firms converting and rebranding it.

Wallendo · May 30, 2021

Adrian Bacon said:
I doubt it. Cinestill is selling the emulsions into a market that Kodak isn’t. Cinestill isn’t even a competitor. In order to be a competitor, both have to sell into the same market and compete for the same buyers. That isn’t happening and likely never will, given the modifications needed to remove the remjet backing. I’d be surprised if Kodak has an agreement to make the stuff with no remjet. For all we know, cinestill is just buying master rolls and having them converted to 35mm and 120, then removing the remjet and packaging it still cameras.

According to Cinestill films indigo campaign :

The first $120K in funds will be used to complete the capital investment needed for the following:

Move our new large machine into its new facility

Install and setup large film machine for making large film

Receive special order medium format convertible motion picture film

Convert film to still photography compatible CineStill material

Send to other film manufacturers for 120 assembly and packaging

Ship your perks to you by July!

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cinestill-medium-large-format-film#/

They apparently have a machine in Rochester which removes the rem-jet from color film before assembly and packaging. This step obviously wouldn't be needed for B&W film. For this new film, they likely just receive the special order film and ship it to Europe for finishing.

Sal Santamaura · May 31, 2021

Sal Santamaura said:
Is this a custom packaging by Eastman Kodak for CineStill? Made and finished in Rochester? Also, what base is it on? I find no detail about that in the links.

Jarin Blaschke said:
Kodak does not make DoubleX in 65mm format, and the special order fees and minimum quantity order would be exorbitant. What is their source for this film?...

Ernst-Jan said:
Made in Rochester for sure...

MattKing said:
....I don't think there is anything to stop Eastman Kodak from contract coating for other vendors, as long as they aren't contract coating a Kodak branded still film.

braxus said:
I'd be curious how the managed to get this film in 120 as well...

Adrian Bacon said:
...For all we know, cinestill is just buying master rolls and having them converted to 35mm and 120, then removing the remjet and packaging it still cameras.

Wallendo said:
...They apparently have a machine in Rochester which removes the rem-jet from color film before assembly and packaging. This step obviously wouldn't be needed for B&W film. For this new film, they likely just receive the special order film and ship it to Europe for finishing.

OK, so we have rampant speculation, some of which is incompatible with the rest.

Since CineStill, while identifying this 120 product as its own, doesn't even attempt to hide that it's Kodak Double X negative film, questions about the base remain unanswered. Kodak's technical data sheet

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf

indicates the 16mm and 35mm versions are on gray-tinted acetate bases, but offers no clue as to thickness. It would be good for those with cinema backgrounds to enlighten us on what thickness such acetate camera stocks are in general or, better yet, these in particular.

We don't know whether this CineStill "Double XX" is created by Eastman Kodak selling master rolls for 16mm/35mm product to Cinestill, which the latter then has cut and finished as 120 rolls. If so, the resulting product might share physical traits with 120 Ilford Delta 3200, which is cut from 35mm master rolls with thick-for-120 gray-tinted base.

In my opinion, the only way more definitive answers about CineStill BwXX will emerge is when one of us purchases some and reports here on their measurements (physical and sensitometric). This thread is the limit of my curiosity, so it won't be me posting those results.

Bill Burk · May 31, 2021

Sal Santamaura said:
In my opinion, the only way more definitive answers about CineStill BwXX will emerge is when one of us purchases some and reports here on their measurements (physical and sensitometric). This thread is the limit of my curiosity, so it won't be me posting those results.

For 35mm 5222, I didn't measure the base before development, but 7 minutes in D-76 1:1 (old mix) there was 0.23 base + fog which seems reasonable for a gray base.
Caliper shows the 35mm film is about 0.06 inches thick.

When I get the 120 I will shoot and test it and share the results here.

Sal Santamaura · Jun 1, 2021

Bill Burk said:
...Caliper shows the 35mm film is about 0.06 inches thick...

Should that be 0.006 inches, which would be typical for a 35mm acetate base plus emulsion?

Mark Crabtree · Jun 1, 2021

Any new film choice is a nice thing, especially in 120.

I don't have a guess about this current situation but thought I'd mention that I was shooting a fair bit of XX aerial film last year, hand cut down from 9 1/2" to 120 size. That is on a polyester type base and has extended red sensitivity. I've got quite a lot of it and should have the tech sheet somewhere. Made in sizes down to 70mm I think. I doubt they've made any for a while, but don't really know.

Bill Burk · Jun 1, 2021

Sal Santamaura said:
Should that be 0.006 inches, which would be typical for a 35mm acetate base plus emulsion?

Yes it's not practically a tenth of an inch thick. Just a few thousandths.

Bronson Dugnutt · Jun 1, 2021

Kodak p3200 in Tmax 1+4

Edit: 35mm in a nikkormat ft2 50mm f1.2

Adrian Bacon · Jun 2, 2021

I got the shipment in today (Tues) and created the Amazon product information page for it. Already got multiple orders for it to ship out.

Danner · Jun 2, 2021

So, is this a thick emulsion film? That would be rather useful for N+2 and even N+3 processing...

Lachlan Young · Jun 2, 2021

Danner said:
So, is this a thick emulsion film? That would be rather useful for N+2 and even N+3 processing...

Probably not. State of the art in 1959 would have been probably heading towards blended emulsions that were quite strongly monodisperse, and at the speed rating in question it may be a two layer coating structure. It has likely gone through some upgrades in the intervening. Super-XX was something quite different - it seems to have been a polydisperse single emulsion construction that was, technologically speaking, well out of date by 1959. It persisted because it had useful properties in technical/ lab usage, not because it was inherently 'better'. As for N+3, it's a question of appropriate developer choice - what worked with a simple single emulsion construction (not designed for maximum developer interaction) may not work as well with a more complex multilayer/ multi-emulsion film today that exploits certain aspects of developer behaviour.

Sal Santamaura · Jun 2, 2021

Bill Burk said:
...Caliper shows the 35mm film is about 0.06 inches thick...

Sal Santamaura said:
Should that be 0.006 inches, which would be typical for a 35mm acetate base plus emulsion?

Bill Burk said:
Yes it's not practically a tenth of an inch thick. Just a few thousandths.

Danner said:
So, is this a thick emulsion film? That would be rather useful for N+2 and even N+3 processing...

My comments and Bill's replies are centered around the film's base material/thickness. Emulsion thickness (compared to other films' emulsion thicknesses) are not the reason for this exchange.

Donald Qualls · Jun 3, 2021

Greg Davis said:
Cinestill did tell me directly that this is cut from a master roll of 5222 that they buy directly from Kodak.

That matches pretty closely what I recall reading about their relabeled Visions3 films without remjet and in 120 -- master roll quantity purchase (in order to get it without the remjet) and custom cut for the 120.

Mark Crabtree · Jun 3, 2021

Greg Davis said:
I’ve not yet been on YouTube for three years, so I’m not the biggest channel by far, but I have caught the attention of Cinestill and Lomography. I’m not to the free film size though. Cinestill did tell me directly that this is cut from a master roll of 5222 that they buy directly from Kodak.

It is great to get a clear answer to that. I've been researching what XX has been made in the past and cutting from a master roll was the only conclusion I could come up with. Quite a commitment.

Cinestill launches Kodak Double-X in 120

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency