CineStill800 120 New Release out now: How did you find it ?

trendland · Sep 19, 2017

chassis said:
Cinestill to my eye has a different palette than Portra 400. I see it in the reds and blacks. Cinestill also seems higher contrast than Portra 400.

Yes the higher contrast of this cinestill emulsion is often mentioned.
It is not so extreme different but in general I agree with you .....

with regards

lantau · Sep 19, 2017

I was shooting my second roll of the Cinestill a short while ago. It was late afternoon, when the sunlight is said to have shifted to red. I was and am a bit sceptical about the use of tungsten balanced film for this. In May I shot a roll of Fuji Provia 400X in this kind of light in Tallinn, Estonia. There was a lot of high contrast with the street level quite dark and the upper levels in strong sun light. It worked remarkably well, the shadows were not totally underexposed. But quite a few frames had a strong blue cast in scenes that were not directly lit by the sun. Provia 400X is apparently known for those blue shadows.

Anyway, I shot this roll of Cinestill without the 85B filter, that I use for tungsten film in daylight, and it worked out pretty well. But the Provia experience is still relevant. Scenes, which are well lit in the open worked out great. When I colour balanced scenes in shaded areas I noticed that the red channel hit the left edge of the histogram. The cyan layer was underexposed, apparently. I could mostly recover that but one frame was a close up focused on some flowers growing from a window sill and architecture in the out of focus background. I couldn't recover the flowers colour in the balancing step. The information in the emulsion was simply lacking. Some digital magic in post got me a usable, not necessarily correct, image, but that means it is beyond what we can use here.

I develop in ECN-2 chemistry, btw. So no colour shifts from cross processing.

Overall I really liked what I got and one frame in particular made it really worth for me. The tungsten balanced emulsion seems to be perfect for rendering flames:

Maybe Portra or Ektar could have done this just as well, I'm simply lacking experience there, but I really like how this one worked out!

Here is another one out in the open light. Seems ok to me. No clipping of any colour channel. A portrait that I took right in front of the wall you can see in the background worked out ok, but had that weak red channel.

So to answer the OPs question: I find it to be nice film. I also have seven rolls of the 50D coming in as well. But at the price I won't be using much of it. I'd rather spend the money on slide film and use the normal C41 offerings for my colour negative needs in medium format. 35mm is a different story, there I use proper bulk rolls of Vision3 for most colour negative work. Not really for the price, but because it is fascinating.

trendland · Sep 21, 2017

lantau said:
I was shooting my second roll of the Cinestill a short while ago. It was late afternoon, when the sunlight is said to have shifted to red. I was and am a bit sceptical about the use of tungsten balanced film for this. In May I shot a roll of Fuji Provia 400X in this kind of light in Tallinn, Estonia. There was a lot of high contrast with the street level quite dark and the upper levels in strong sun light. It worked remarkably well, the shadows were not totally underexposed. But quite a few frames had a strong blue cast in scenes that were not directly lit by the sun. Provia 400X is apparently known for those blue shadows.

Anyway, I shot this roll of Cinestill without the 85B filter, that I use for tungsten film in daylight, and it worked out pretty well. But the Provia experience is still relevant. Scenes, which are well lit in the open worked out great. When I colour balanced scenes in shaded areas I noticed that the red channel hit the left edge of the histogram. The cyan layer was underexposed, apparently. I could mostly recover that but one frame was a close up focused on some flowers growing from a window sill and architecture in the out of focus background. I couldn't recover the flowers colour in the balancing step. The information in the emulsion was simply lacking. Some digital magic in post got me a usable, not necessarily correct, image, but that means it is beyond what we can use here.

I develop in ECN-2 chemistry, btw. So no colour shifts from cross processing.

Overall I really liked what I got and one frame in particular made it really worth for me. The tungsten balanced emulsion seems to be perfect for rendering flames:

View attachment 186992

Maybe Portra or Ektar could have done this just as well, I'm simply lacking experience there, but I really like how this one worked out!

Here is another one out in the open light. Seems ok to me. No clipping of any colour channel. A portrait that I took right in front of the wall you can see in the background worked out ok, but had that weak red channel.

View attachment 186993

So to answer the OPs question: I find it to be nice film. I also have seven rolls of the 50D coming in as well. But at the price I won't be using much of it. I'd rather spend the money on slide film and use the normal C41 offerings for my colour negative needs in medium format. 35mm is a different story, there I use proper bulk rolls of Vision3 for most colour negative work. Not really for the price, but because it is fascinating.

Yes indeed the cinestill manufactured films are a bit hight priced.
By the time - did you notice any effect caused from the removed anti halation layer (Ramjet) ?
Cinestill does have a method to remove it before exposure.
With Kodak Vision 3 you have to do it
after exposure while developing ( pe-bath.)
There different statements in other
posts.

I personaly used the original cinestill stuff only for night shots.

Seams to be ok without remjet and also with c41 (comercial lab development).

with regards

trendland · Sep 21, 2017

Oh sorry the shot is posted twice?
But also forgot to say - the scan is made
also from comercial lab.
But it is digitally processed a little. I opened it just before - indeed it was a high resolution scan.
The digitally processing reduced the resolution a little.
I looks not so far in the near of a typical
DSLR shot - but don't worry I do not own any digital equipment.
The background is from my point of view
not caused from light wich has bounced back into the emulsion and created haloes around bright light areas.
It is just caused by the lens (bokeh) and in addition caused from massive overexposure.
Exposure time > 3sek. apperature 2,8
Nikon 28mm (mechanical type)
Light in front : No light ! The face was lighted from laterns of a park in 15 meters distance.

with regards

NortheastPhotographic · Sep 27, 2017

Cinestill has static shock problems that show up as blue streaks that go through your images. They look like lightening bolts. They have a lot of QC issues that way. Frankly I don't see the point. 800T is really 500T and and 50D isn't considerably finer grained than either Ektar, or Portra 160, which are both half the price. Plus if I wanted to shoot a 50 speed film it would certainly be Velvia. Not to be a debbie downer about a new film stock, but IMO it's just so expensive and with the QC issues, it's not for me.

trendland · Sep 28, 2017

Sperdynamite said:
Cinestill has static shock problems that show up as blue streaks that go through your images. They look like lightening bolts. They have a lot of QC issues that way. Frankly I don't see the point. 800T is really 500T and and 50D isn't considerably finer grained than either Ektar, or Portra 160, which are both half the price. Plus if I wanted to shoot a 50 speed film it would certainly be Velvia. Not to be a debbie downer about a new film stock, but IMO it's just so expensive and with the QC issues, it's not for me.

50D is an improved version version or isn't it? I am not quite sure now.
500T is indeed top due to latest technology improvements like with Portra400.
And the difference is very remarkable in
comparison.
Some say the "new Portra400" with E.I. ISO 800 is less grainy than Portra800 with original box speed.And the difference shall be amazing (much finer grain with push developing ??)
I can't say if it is true.First I have to shoot my tons of Agfa high speed films before I would have a demand to Portra.
And grain with Agfa high speed films ?

But even if Ektar100 is with new improvements (I don't know now)
Vision50D should be its MASTER in regard of absolut finest grain.
Thats from special interest to 120 films.
I got a cheap offer 50D somewhere in the
near of 180m at a pricing of £ 90,- + tax
and shipping.But I totaly loused - I was waiting 2 -3 weeks can't male a decision.
It was sold after waiting to long.
A recan of a james bond production in studios near london (and obviously further local areas in G.B.)
120film (65mm) at about max. $145,-

= ~ min. 250 films a $ -, 58 ....... incl.ramjet

with regards

Sirius Glass · Sep 28, 2017

I would rather support Portra so I will stick to buying Portra in 35mm and 120.

NortheastPhotographic · Sep 30, 2017

trendland said:
50D is an improved version version or isn't it? I am not quite sure now.
500T is indeed top due to latest technology improvements like with Portra400.
And the difference is very remarkable in
comparison.
Some say the "new Portra400" with E.I. ISO 800 is less grainy than Portra800 with original box speed.And the difference shall be amazing (much finer grain with push developing ??)
I can't say if it is true.First I have to shoot my tons of Agfa high speed films before I would have a demand to Portra.
And grain with Agfa high speed films ?

But even if Ektar100 is with new improvements (I don't know now)
Vision50D should be its MASTER in regard of absolut finest grain.
Thats from special interest to 120 films.
I got a cheap offer 50D somewhere in the
near of 180m at a pricing of £ 90,- + tax
and shipping.But I totaly loused - I was waiting 2 -3 weeks can't male a decision.
It was sold after waiting to long.
A recan of a james bond production in studios near london (and obviously further local areas in G.B.)
120film (65mm) at about max. $145,-
= ~ min. 250 films a $ -, 58 ....... incl.ramjet

with regards

All the color stocks save Portra 800 are already based on Vision 3 technology, so Portra 400 has the same tech that 500T has, and yes Ektar & P160 have the same tech as 50D. Just because it was released at a later date doesn't mean that Kodak creates a new generation with every stock that is put to market. There was simply a need for a slow motion picture stock, and Kodak filled it. To say that it's vastly finer grained from Ektar may not be accurate. For example Velvia 100 has finer grain than Velvia 50. In many ways Portra 160 isn't substantially finer grained than even Portra 400. These films are quite remarkable in their quality. I'm sure 50D is indeed a finer grained film, but I'm just not sure I'd see it in an 11x14 enlargement. I don't see it in scans.

My overall point is... The fine grain-ness of 50D is overstated, it's cost is high, and the risk of QC issues is equally high. While at the same time, Ektar is cheap and reliable, same with Portra 160. Plus, if you're chasing fine grain, no C41 stock holds a candle to Provia or Velvia.

Personally if you want to shoot motion stocks, get films with the rem-jet still on. Send them to me and I'll run them with the Rem-Jet in my Phototherm, and you won't have any of the QC and high cost problems of Cinestill. My lab is Dead Link Removed

trendland · Sep 30, 2017

Yes - nice to hear. To the grain - i noticed max. enlargement should be 50 x 70 with 135 films.
That should be the format also to compare grain.
Smaler formats shows indeed not so clear a difference from grain of different films.

with regards

lantau · Oct 1, 2017

Sperdynamite said:
All the color stocks save Portra 800 are already based on Vision 3 technology, so Portra 400 has the same tech that 500T has, and yes Ektar & P160 have the same tech as 50D. Just because it was released at a later date doesn't mean that Kodak creates a new generation with every stock that is put to market. There was simply a need for a slow motion picture stock, and Kodak filled it. To say that it's vastly finer grained from Ektar may not be accurate. For example Velvia 100 has finer grain than Velvia 50. In many ways Portra 160 isn't substantially finer grained than even Portra 400. These films are quite remarkable in their quality. I'm sure 50D is indeed a finer grained film, but I'm just not sure I'd see it in an 11x14 enlargement. I don't see it in scans.

My overall point is... The fine grain-ness of 50D is overstated, it's cost is high, and the risk of QC issues is equally high. While at the same time, Ektar is cheap and reliable, same with Portra 160. Plus, if you're chasing fine grain, no C41 stock holds a candle to Provia or Velvia.

Personally if you want to shoot motion stocks, get films with the rem-jet still on. Send them to me and I'll run them with the Rem-Jet in my Phototherm, and you won't have any of the QC and high cost problems of Cinestill. My lab is Dead Link Removed

I remember having read that the Vision3 films are the best thing that Kodak is coating. If that is true I wonder how they can do this with the simple and convenient ECN2 process, while the C41 process seems to have been optimised/fine tuned for current films and in any case is using Potassiumiodide, which ECN does not require. One would think the latest Kodak C41 films should be a little better.

If the Vision3 are indeed the optimum it would be my (unfeasable) dream for C41 to be replaced by the old ECN-2 process. That does not mean that they should use remjet instead of dye. Just the ECN dev, bleach and fix steps. No more guessing the correct C41 formula, almost no exotic chemicals, easy to mix. Except for the slightly higher temp, which could be a problem for Jobo machines, ECN-2 is simple and convenient.

But I agree about the Cinestill products. They are too expensive. I only participated in the Kickstarter campaign for 120 film because I was curious. I feel a bit bad about it, having pretended a demand that might not actually be there from me.

I use normal Vision3 material in 35mm. My 50D 120 arrived from Cinestill a few days ago. I'm sure it will not disappoint. The advantage over Ektar would be the suitablity for portraits, for those who want that. I like Ektar and Velvia (but also stock Portra and Fuji Pro). But isn't Ektar known to have fine grain but less resolution than Portra? In that case the 50D would have the grain of Ektar and the resolution of Portra.

Are you running Vision3 through your Phototherm without removing remjet in a first mechanical step? That would likely contaminate the emulsion side of the film. Let alone the cross processing. But the latter is what most Cinestill shooters will do anyway. Oh, and cleaning your machine will be a nightmare. Remjet will stick like hell, but still release a small amount of particles for ever.

We should all use E6 film, instead. The one true (colour) film.

Photo Engineer · Oct 1, 2017

C41 and Cine camera films are similar but not the same. Just consider the use of CD3 vs CD4 in the two processes as one example. Consider the process temps and the level of color correction. No, these are not the same but are related closely. And E6 is not a "true colour" film! E6 is close, but not as good as color negative. If it were, it would have been used in motion picture applications from the start!!

PE

NortheastPhotographic · Oct 1, 2017

lantau said:
I remember having read that the Vision3 films are the best thing that Kodak is coating. If that is true I wonder how they can do this with the simple and convenient ECN2 process, while the C41 process seems to have been optimised/fine tuned for current films and in any case is using Potassiumiodide, which ECN does not require. One would think the latest Kodak C41 films should be a little better.

If the Vision3 are indeed the optimum it would be my (unfeasable) dream for C41 to be replaced by the old ECN-2 process. That does not mean that they should use remjet instead of dye. Just the ECN dev, bleach and fix steps. No more guessing the correct C41 formula, almost no exotic chemicals, easy to mix. Except for the slightly higher temp, which could be a problem for Jobo machines, ECN-2 is simple and convenient.

But I agree about the Cinestill products. They are too expensive. I only participated in the Kickstarter campaign for 120 film because I was curious. I feel a bit bad about it, having pretended a demand that might not actually be there from me.

I use normal Vision3 material in 35mm. My 50D 120 arrived from Cinestill a few days ago. I'm sure it will not disappoint. The advantage over Ektar would be the suitablity for portraits, for those who want that. I like Ektar and Velvia (but also stock Portra and Fuji Pro). But isn't Ektar known to have fine grain but less resolution than Portra? In that case the 50D would have the grain of Ektar and the resolution of Portra.

Are you running Vision3 through your Phototherm without removing remjet in a first mechanical step? That would likely contaminate the emulsion side of the film. Let alone the cross processing. But the latter is what most Cinestill shooters will do anyway. Oh, and cleaning your machine will be a nightmare. Remjet will stick like hell, but still release a small amount of particles for ever.

We should all use E6 film, instead. The one true (colour) film.

According to the Phototherm instructions the remjet won't effect the pump system in the SSK-8r.

"MOTION PICTURE FILM (black layer on base). Process ECN-2. Process like normal C-41 film. Since SIDEKICK can use fresh solutions for each step, the black residue does not gum up the unit. Turn SAVE switch OFF. After the last step, rinse under warm water and gently rub the remaining residue from the film base. Do not touch the emulsion. Hang film to dry. Wash reels with a soft brush in dish detergent. "

lantau · Oct 2, 2017

Sperdynamite said:
According to the Phototherm instructions the remjet won't effect the pump system in the SSK-8r.

"MOTION PICTURE FILM (black layer on base). Process ECN-2. Process like normal C-41 film. Since SIDEKICK can use fresh solutions for each step, the black residue does not gum up the unit. Turn SAVE switch OFF. After the last step, rinse under warm water and gently rub the remaining residue from the film base. Do not touch the emulsion. Hang film to dry. Wash reels with a soft brush in dish detergent. "

Ok, I agree with the text to the letter. There just isn't enough material to gum up a pump. When I did removal experiments with ECN Prewash in a plastic tub I found that tiny little dots would attach to the plastic. They are difficult to remove, in fact they are still there. I just haven't bothered with it that much. Dilute sulfuric acid and use of a sponge will hopefully get it off. Once I find the motivation to try...

I use that tray as a water bath to bring my solutions up to temp. And I noticed some remjet dots do swim in the water. And potentially reattach somewhere.

Just to let you know my experience.

lantau · Oct 2, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
C41 and Cine camera films are similar but not the same. Just consider the use of CD3 vs CD4 in the two processes as one example. Consider the process temps and the level of color correction. No, these are not the same but are related closely. And E6 is not a "true colour" film! E6 is close, but not as good as color negative. If it were, it would have been used in motion picture applications from the start!!
PE

That was a little joke on my part. I was refering to the ideological expression 'The one true god/faith/economic system/spaghetti sauce'.

I have no doubt that you are technically correct. But those who fall for slide will see it like that in a practical way. All in good humour, of course.

I'm not looking down on colour negative film, I like it. But I had to postpone my plan to try RA4 to next year, so I never truly know if I'm getting what it is supposed to look like. There is no such ambiguity about slide film. And that is what many new to film (again) people really want from film today. To deliver an image with the character of the specific film.

So from that viewpoint E6 is the one true film. But if your needs are different, then you'll come to a different (and heretic ) conclusion.

Photo Engineer · Oct 2, 2017

Rem jet is colloidal carbon, and as such it is so small that it can become lodged in the swollen gelatin emulsion. If it does that, it cannot be removed.

PE

trendland · Oct 4, 2017

Ok - just from the emulsion I would like to state it is the best Kodak ever made.
This is to all vision 3 emulsions. But notice : Portra 400 new (improved) comes into profit of latest advanced coating.
Portra 800 I can't say for sure has not been improved short after the anouncement to "new Portra 400".
But I am not realy informed about because I use no Portras. It is absolute possible Kodak improved all color emulsions time to time. May be all Portras are comparable with vision3.
With Kodak gold family I have strong doupts.Also with Ektar 100.
The question to some films is just : "
What is the latest production date of
Ektar & Co. Not manufacturing/assembling the question is to the coating ?
It may be possible to some emulsions there is no coating at this time from Kodak because last coatings have been some years ago.And after coating masterrolls have been freezed and assembling is from time to time in concern of demand.
To answer this question would help to answer if all Kodak emulsions were imoproved meanwile.
But with Kodak Ektar 100 I have little doupts if there was a new coating process after 2005,2006,2007 ?
Kodak will not tell us.
Therefore I stated 50D should be the champion in concern of smalest grain and resolution.
A total other question is from my point of view the use of ecn2 chems or the use of c41 developer.
C41 absolute chance the original color design - I can't say if this is an additional
lost to the characteristic of vision 3
in regard of resolution and grain.
But it seams so.

with regards

trendland · Oct 4, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Rem jet is colloidal carbon, and as such it is so small that it can become lodged in the swollen gelatin emulsion. If it does that, it cannot be removed.

PE

I wonder sometimes in the past what the magic method of cinestill could be to remove the ramjet layer ? ( with a special production method - they stated ).
To wash the film from masterrols in a big
"post manufacturing" process like the presoak in original ecn2 with mechanical
removing the ramjet from water jets - would imply to dry the emulsion after this.
This would also effect a lost of the original properties of the film.

Hart to say how much this would damage the emulsion if it isn't done absolute carefull.

with regards

NortheastPhotographic · Oct 4, 2017

trendland said:
Ok - just from the emulsion I would like to state it is the best Kodak ever made.
This is to all vision 3 emulsions. But notice : Portra 400 new (improved) comes into profit of latest advanced coating.
Portra 800 I can't say for sure has not been improved short after the anouncement to "new Portra 400".
But I am not realy informed about because I use no Portras. It is absolute possible Kodak improved all color emulsions time to time. May be all Portras are comparable with vision3.
With Kodak gold family I have strong doupts.Also with Ektar 100.
The question to some films is just : "
What is the latest production date of
Ektar & Co. Not manufacturing/assembling the question is to the coating ?
It may be possible to some emulsions there is no coating at this time from Kodak because last coatings have been some years ago.And after coating masterrolls have been freezed and assembling is from time to time in concern of demand.
To answer this question would help to answer if all Kodak emulsions were imoproved meanwile.
But with Kodak Ektar 100 I have little doupts if there was a new coating process after 2005,2006,2007 ?
Kodak will not tell us.
Therefore I stated 50D should be the champion in concern of smalest grain and resolution.
A total other question is from my point of view the use of ecn2 chems or the use of c41 developer.
C41 absolute chance the original color design - I can't say if this is an additional
lost to the characteristic of vision 3
in regard of resolution and grain.
But it seams so.

with regards

I think you're over thinking it and also thinking conspiratorially.

trendland · Oct 5, 2017

Sperdynamite said:
I think you're over thinking it and also thinking conspiratorially.

What do you all have by meaning with conspiracy ? To me it is total normal not to believe EVERYTHING what is told. That is a basis to have own thoughts.And even if own thoughts are wrong - mostly they are good ....

with regards

PS : The demand to Ektar 100 is so smal I can`t say if Kodak can produce this stuff without exorbitant high costs.

If I would have to decide at Kodak I would produce Ektar only on the demand of 8-12 years to more normal costs and freeze all the stuff meanwile.

Does anybody know if this is the exact way Kodak did it since 1983 ? with EPN, EPP, E100 ?

with regards

trendland · Oct 5, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
I would rather support Portra so I will stick to buying Portra in 35mm and 120.

A friend has only Portra in use with his Fuji GX 680 ! I was a little impressed from the pricing in 2008. Today I am shocked from pricing.

But if I would spend $ 9,35 - § 10,50 to a roll

lantau · Oct 5, 2017

trendland said:
I wonder sometimes in the past what the magic method of cinestill could be to remove the ramjet layer ? ( with a special production method - they stated ).
To wash the film from masterrols in a big
"post manufacturing" process like the presoak in original ecn2 with mechanical
removing the ramjet from water jets - would imply to dry the emulsion after this.
This would also effect a lost of the original properties of the film.

Hart to say how much this would damage the emulsion if it isn't done absolute carefull.

with regards

I am really wondering about that. Do they allow the emulsion to get soaked by running the presoak and remjet steps like the ECN process? But they do talk about their patented premoval. So hopefully it stays dry.

Somewhere they did mention that their product should be used within 12 months because of the premoval process. May have been one of the Kickstarter newsletter, which I read. So maybe the emulsion is touched...

lantau · Oct 5, 2017

trendland said:
But with Kodak Ektar 100 I have little doupts if there was a new coating process after 2005,2006,2007 ?

Wasn't the current Ektar 100 introduced in 2008? And wasn't there no Ektar immediately before that?

So that means that the current stock is definitley not older than nine years!

Sirius Glass · Oct 5, 2017

trendland said:
A friend has only Portra in use with his Fuji GX 680 ! I was a little impressed from the pricing in 2008. Today I am shocked from pricing.

But if I would spend $ 9,35 - § 10,50 to a roll

One gets what they pay for.

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2017

If the emulsion is soaked and then dried, one runs the risk of washing out important chemicals which are present for emulsion stability and for other beneficial effects. I would have to assume that they used a method that did not soak the emulsion, but this is speculation.

PE

trendland · Oct 7, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
If the emulsion is soaked and then dried, one runs the risk of washing out important chemicals which are present for emulsion stability and for other beneficial effects. I would have to assume that they used a method that did not soak the emulsion, but this is speculation.

PE

Right PE , I suspekt sonst ging in his direktion.
His will also answer some quality problems with cinestill.

with regards

CineStill800 120 New Release out now: How did you find it ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency