Cinestill? My own version / experiment!

[CineVisionLDN]

Hello People,
Long time lurker on this forum but finally feel I have something worth sharing!
I've developed my own version of CineStill film. I was inspired to see if I could make it cheaper and I've got a test batch for people to test. I've got blog here, tracking the process:
http://cine-vision-film-experiment.blogspot.co.uk/
The remjet is removed by a commercial lab and currently I spool the stock myself. If theres enough interest then I would move to have the film commercially spooled and packed. Maybe with a kickstater?

Just looking to let people know and see if it's worth continuing the project.
Questions welcome.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

Just to be clear - I've made a film identical to cinestill but with a target of nearly 1/2 the price.
Before I proceed with either a kickstarter or pouring more of my own money in, I thought it best to get some stock out to people for feedback.

 

[Rudeofus]

Not trying to discourage you, but Cinestill has an established distribution chain that you may find difficult competing against, at least initially. How about spooling another emulsion (AFAIK there are more Kodak Vision products than 50D and 500T) or another format, in case you end up with the same final price as Cinestill you still have a compelling alternative product.

 

[Xmas]

Not trying to discourage you, but Cinestill has an established distribution chain that you may find difficult competing against, at least initially. How about spooling another emulsion (AFAIK there are more Kodak Vision products than 50D and 500T) or another format, in case you end up with the same final price as Cinestill you still have a compelling alternative product.

suggest better option for your customers is 250D.
But your margin may be more difficult.
You need film box, date printer, film tub, cassettes, DX code film type label, cutting template, reel of film minus REMJET and a clean room/dark room.
A real finishing machine would need lotsa $.
You need to be able to sell yourself eg to Lomo, lots of their film is rebadged Kodak, so don't expect large margin...

So I'd try 250D and 5222 if you try and can under cut the current people and can still eat you may be happy.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

No discouragement taken. I've already pushed the cost down to 4.99 a roll and with careful planning could work it lower. I found a commercial company whom would roll and package the film and still keep it within this price bracket!

As for other stocks, i've already rolled some 250D. I love the look of it and will be posting some scans later this week on my blog.
There's nothing stopping me try others, I've got Fuji Reala and Eterna waiting for my next remjet removal run.

This is all just an experiment at this stage.

 

[baachitraka]

Subscribed.

 

[Xmas]

No discouragement taken. I've already pushed the cost down to 4.99 a roll and with careful planning could work it lower. I found a commercial company whom would roll and package the film and still keep it within this price bracket!

As for other stocks, i've already rolled some 250D. I love the look of it and will be posting some scans later this week on my blog.
There's nothing stopping me try others, I've got Fuji Reala and Eterna waiting for my next remjet removal run.

This is all just an experiment at this stage.

Yes but 5222 might be a larger volume seller to start up with.
It is a normal film and in absence of Plusx might attract custom.
The REMJET removal both attracts customers and repels.
Eg I use PET film with similar signature to minus REMJET.

Getting film into a Lomo web shop would allow jam on bread.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

True, I made up 30 rolls of 250D / 5222 and they've nearly all sold from my site.
cinevision.tictail.com

There's also some rolls available at Labrynth Lab in East London.
So far the 500T seems to be very popular but I'm open to making up other films. If the feedbacks positive then i'll explore getting into supplying shops/retail proper.


[h=3][/h]

 

[Rudeofus]

Knocking down the cost of remjet free Vision 500T is good, but at GBP 12 for shipping and handling I'd have to order a large volume to make this competitive with locally sourced Cinestill 800. I am not surprised to see the 250D out of stock, since this is a unique offering.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

Yes, the European shipping is a bit expensive but I have not been able to find cheaper with tracking. Sorry about that.
I've got friends based in France and Germany so might explore getting them to hold some stock?

 

[Xmas]

Knocking down the cost of remjet free Vision 500T is good, but at GBP 12 for shipping and handling I'd have to order a large volume to make this competitive with locally sourced Cinestill 800. I am not surprised to see the 250D out of stock, since this is a unique offering.

Yes but I have the perception problem why is 500T available but not 250D.

Eg I might buy a 250D cassette with (REMJET) and home process it but won't think of 500T (with or without) REMJET, I do have a light balance filter somewhere, but I won't have to hand.

There is normally agfaphoto vista at 1£ per 24x nearby it is selling.

 

[Rudeofus]

500T is the only colour film that gives usable exposure times in evening room light with a moderately fast lens. This gives it a unique value, unlike 250D, which has numerous competitors (Portra 400, Superia 400, ...).

 

[film_man]

It would be interesting, I have used quite a bit of 800T and 50D from Cinestill and 800T has fallen a bit out of favour with me, I just can't get consistent results with it (but when I do it really sings). On the other hand 50D is amazing and my only issue with it is the speed. If I could have 250D I'd shoot this thing all day long, these films have a unique colour vs 400H and Portra.

 

[Xmas]

500T is the only colour film that gives usable exposure times in evening room light with a moderately fast lens. This gives it a unique value, unlike 250D, which has numerous competitors (Portra 400, Superia 400, ...).

Only if the lighting is tungsten & our tylight can still be blue.
If a ceiling is close to white then bounce is an option with daylight film.
So not in my environment.
But some gigs might be tungsten not seen one for a while though.

 

[avalladares7439]

where and when can I buy this

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I guess it's human nature to have a need to believe that there is something better out there, just waiting to be found. The 200mpg carburetor, grainless ISO 3200 film, whatever.

Even overlooking the remjet factor, movie stocks were never made to shoot still. The contrast is even lower than normal C-41 color neg, and printing movie stocks to RA-4 just suck. They are designed to print with a high contrast print film, the ones that go into the projectors. I've shot and processed movie stock in C-41 and removed the remjet easily. But in those days all I could do was be able to say I could do it. Even the labs dealing in movie film to the public didn't have matching systems to the film being developed outside of ECN-2. Today, with ubiquitous high quality scanners, no problemo. The hybrid path is the only one open.

I understand having fun with different ways of doing things. But not everything makes sense. There are still a lot of good color negative films out there that don't cost as much as Cinevision. And who needs ISO 50 grain? How big are we making our prints, anyway? OK, maybe a movie theater, that's probably where it excels. Shoot Ektar 100, end of story, no remjet.

The remjet is there for a good reason. It isn't there just to make amateur photographer's lives more difficult. It makes a superior film, better antihalation properties. But if you take it off before you shoot, you may not only have lost the reason, but it's possible the film isn't even as good as conventional color neg since it's now naked.

It also occurs to me that D or T doesn't really matter much with the hybrid system. Color correct in the scanner.

Too many negatives, pardon the pun, without one positive that I can see. Other than being different.

 

[Rudeofus]

Paul, there is no colour film out there that has sufficient blue sensitivity for shooting indoor with artificial light and acceptable exposure times. Daylight balanced ISO 800 emulsions turn into ISO 200 film with tungsten balanced light, assuming that they are real ISO 800 to begin with (they aren't). Result: you get at least 1 1/2 stops more sensitivity with 500T, which can make or break a shot in poor light. Granularity of 500T is spectacular, I enlarged a 35mm negative to 18x24 and it's grain free (see my gallery). Contrast is a non-issue for anyone going the hybrid route (pretty common these days), and my 500T gallery image was processed to spec (i.e. not pushed) in ECN-2, then optically enlarged to RA-4 paper.

There are lots of very good colour films out there, and that's a good thing: it gives us a range of colour palettes to pick from. There is different subject matter for Velvia 50, other for Portra 160, for Superia 800 ... and I see images which work great in a low contrast 50D emulsion (although I'd prefer it in 120 format).

 

[Rudeofus]

where and when can I buy this

A link to the thread starter's web shop has been posted in this thread, post #8.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

where and when can I buy this

Hello, You can get some sample rolls now via my tictail site or in person at Labrynth Lab, east London.
Here's the link: cinevisionfilm.tictail.com

Thanks for the interest.

 

[CineVisionLDN]

Even overlooking the remjet factor, movie stocks were never made to shoot still. The contrast is even lower than normal C-41 color neg, and printing movie stocks to RA-4 just suck.

Mostly agree but I must saying this film is shaping up to be a pleasure to scan. That low contrast translates to a very versatile 'raw' file if scanned with due care. Of course, horses for courses. I feel anything that keeps people using film, even experiments like this is a good thing for film in general.

Re Grain: I would love to see a large print from 500T!

 

[CineVisionLDN]

Contrast is a non-issue for anyone going the hybrid route (pretty common these days), and my 500T gallery image was processed to spec (i.e. not pushed) in ECN-2, then optically enlarged to RA-4 paper.

There are lots of very good colour films out there, and that's a good thing: it gives us a range of colour palettes to pick from. There is different subject matter for Velvia 50, other for Portra 160, for Superia 800 ... and I see images which work great in a low contrast 50D emulsion (although I'd prefer it in 120 format).

Yes! if you scan I think the low contrast is a blessing. I'm hoping to write up a blog post on my scanning process (i use a drum scanner which can be very revealing).

Massive thanks to all the people who've purchased some rolls and are offering me invaluable insight.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Paul, there is no colour film out there that has sufficient blue sensitivity for shooting indoor with artificial light and acceptable exposure times. Daylight balanced ISO 800 emulsions turn into ISO 200 film with tungsten balanced light, assuming that they are real ISO 800 to begin with (they aren't). Result: you get at least 1 1/2 stops more sensitivity with 500T, which can make or break a shot in poor light. Granularity of 500T is spectacular, I enlarged a 35mm negative to 18x24 and it's grain free (see my gallery). Contrast is a non-issue for anyone going the hybrid route (pretty common these days), and my 500T gallery image was processed to spec (i.e. not pushed) in ECN-2, then optically enlarged to RA-4 paper.

There are lots of very good colour films out there, and that's a good thing: it gives us a range of colour palettes to pick from. There is different subject matter for Velvia 50, other for Portra 160, for Superia 800 ... and I see images which work great in a low contrast 50D emulsion (although I'd prefer it in 120 format).

A good point about indoor light and daylight color films. And I'm sure that some people would need that. Most of us would use flash unless in a theater or something like that.

But you had it processed in ECN-2, you are more likely to get better results than in C-41, which is where the CineStill, CineVision films are headed for. And you had the remjet there while shooting, as intended.

I try my best to accept what people want or like to do even if I disagree. If it makes sense to "you," always have at it. If "you," (meaning you and/or others) have a need for a high speed tungsten film, this is all to the good and fills a void.

As a universal panacea, I don't get it.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Mostly agree but I must saying this film is shaping up to be a pleasure to scan. That low contrast translates to a very versatile 'raw' file if scanned with due care. Of course, horses for courses. I feel anything that keeps people using film, even experiments like this is a good thing for film in general.

Re Grain: I would love to see a large print from 500T!

Not sure why this would be "a pleasure." I've never had trouble scanning anything, even silver B&W. Contrast can be customized in the scanner controls, regardless.

 

[kb3lms]

Try scanning 5207 processed as ECN-2 one day and you will see why it is a pleasure. It is a wonderful film.

-- Jason

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Try scanning 5207 processed as ECN-2 one day and you will see why it is a pleasure. It is a wonderful film.

-- Jason

I don't and can't do ECN-2, so such an observation is academic for most of us. And I just rather doubt that it's any different than any other color negative film, to be perfectly honest. There's no technical or logical reason it should be. The rem jet backing? Possibly in a few harsh lighting situations. Possibly.

When I live in LA in the 1980's I did a lot, a lot of film with Identicolor in North Hollywood. Close enough that I usually drove my film in and picked it up. Same business model as the famous/infamous Seattle Film Works, and I think Dale Film in (believe it or not) Hollywood, Florida, they no longer do ECN-2. Around 1993 and around the time I left LA, I discovered RGB Color there. While still doing ECN-2 films, they took the business model and went one very logical step further: Submit your ordinary C-41 film, they would develop and print to slides (Vericolor 5022, IIRC) or GREAT prints since that's what the system was designed for.

Why many companies never did this, I'll never understand, what with the many benefits of shooting color neg. The big negative, if I may, is that without a solid base of technology, prints can come out all over the ball park with consumer level processing. The slide option eliminates that. These days, one's quality home scanner takes the place of making slides or a step towards making prints.

I understand the beauty and intensity of slide film. But it's expensive, exposure has to be spot on and even then can't cover a wide SBR, you only get one output. Converting C-41 into slides is perfect. You get to keep the original, make a lot of copies, make great prints w/o the issues of prints from slides.

In poking around on the intertubes on this topic I came across this outfit: Dead Link Removed A very fair price per roll to try the Eastman films, and a source of other non-current formats. The Eastman films are available in bulk, too, but essentially at a 4X price penalty over buying from Kodak directly. Well, each to their own. They suggest using https://www.littlefilmlab.com/services/ for developing the Eastman films, but if you look, it's just C-41 at twice the price to deal with rem jet.

I also found Rocky Mountain Film, only $42.50 to develop one roll of Eastman: http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/ecn.htm A cursory intertube research didn't find any other per roll Eastman ECN-2 processors.

If there are any real, significant advantages shooting Eastman movie films, over Ektar, Portra, Kodak HD, or Fuji color neg films, I'd be real surprised.