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

[trendland]

This CineStill800 120 was discontinued - even though the 135-36 was still avaible.
Now CineStill has finished their 2nd production run.

It is an very amazing film - because it is from Kodaks Motion Picture Films.
Here Kodak realized their latest design of modernest emmulsion technology.

Some Portras get in profit from this advanced improvement too - so
as the "new Portra400".

Do you have made experience with
the CineStill800 120 even with the older ones?
There is no difference between both -
I am sure because it is only a 2nd production of the same original film:
KODAk Vision 500T.

And from those who knew the 120 films - a last question of highest interest : " Do this Films have a perforation and how will this have
an effektiv to your pictures"

with regards

 

[Rudeofus]

I have not used Cinestill 800 in 120 format, but would be absolutely stunned to hear that it was perforated. Unlike the 135 version, which is just a respooled version of Vision 3 500T sans remjet, the 120 version was custom coated on a film base suitable for this format.

 

[trendland]

I have not used Cinestill 800 in 120 format, but would be absolutely stunned to hear that it was perforated. Unlike the 135 version, which is just a respooled version of Vision 3 500T sans remjet, the 120 version was custom coated on a film base suitable for this format.

Yes you are right Rudeofus - I have heard this from a further source.
Ok - if this is in that way CineStill indeed
got their films from original masterolls of
KODAK.
But I can not imagine that they produce
Masterrolls exclusive to CineStill.

In that smal amounds.Have you any idea
whow wide a full masterol is?
Somewere like 80 cm x 3000ft ?
And it will go through the manufacturing
on kodaks big machines.
Thinking you have to order 200 masterolls before it is an economic base.

with regards

 

[Rudeofus]

IIRC they had a fully backed project on kickstarter a while ago. I'd guess, that this is the result from this, or an offspring project thereof. I don't know Kodak's business model regarding custom coatings, but somehow Cinestill must have found a way to make this happen.

 

[trendland]

I would also think so in regard what you mentioned to Kodak.
But with this "new business model" they
would not have been having forced up to
now to kill all E6 films.

Future will see .

with regards

 

[Wallendo]

It is my understanding the Cinestill buys some type of bulk film from EK, then uses some process to remove the rem-jet and then ships it across the Atlantic to be cut and packaged.

What interests me is how this process fits in with Kodak Alaris' distribution rights. Cinestill appears to be interacting directly with Eastman Kodak. KA is involved with the lomography deal - https://petapixel.com/2013/11/14/kodak-lomography-partner-vow-keep-film-photography-alive/
I have a general idea of the agreement between EK and KA, but like most, have never seen actual contractual details.

 

[trendland]

It is my understanding the Cinestill buys some type of bulk film from EK, then uses some process to remove the rem-jet and then ships it across the Atlantic to be cut and packaged.

What interests me is how this process fits in with Kodak Alaris' distribution rights. Cinestill appears to be interacting directly with Eastman Kodak. KA is involved with the lomography deal - https://petapixel.com/2013/11/14/kodak-lomography-partner-vow-keep-film-photography-alive/
I have a general idea of the agreement between EK and KA, but like most, have never seen actual contractual details.

It is indeed not so easy to me to imagine how you can get the ramjet layer in
a special process from the original film?

So first thoughts was that Kodak has got
big ammounds of cinefilm with less request from the marked.
Because this marked with Motion Picture
Film collapsed totaly between 2009-2013!
So as we know some actors and directors
forced the big studios to get in contracts
with Kodak to make sure that filmworks
will be able in the future still outside digital produktion.
Now it has less than 10% somewhere in the near of 5% from the whole pruduktion because very most is digital.
As a conclusion of this Kodak MUST have
very great ammounds of produced films -
wich will be not at all needed for filmworks.But it sesms to be so that this
stuff is payed.
So cinestill may have get very good priced 500T and 50D in regard of less cost to all.
So it was at the beginning.But it seams to be that this has changed - therfore the interest of perforated 120.
It is not so - but never mind.
First comes the masterrolls out of manufactoring - later they
create customized solutions due to the actual request of 35mm and 65mm.
And looking to this it may also be possible to cut 120 still films from the
masterrols without perforation.
But then it is no cheaper fillm stuff wich has been of demand from filmworkers.

with regards

 

[noeru]

What I'm still trying to understand is what's the point of cinestill if portra 400 is using the same technology.

 

[lantau]

It interests me is how this process fits in with Kodak Alaris' distribution rights. Cinestill appears to be interacting directly with Eastman Kodak. KA is involved with the lomography deal - https://petapixel.com/2013/11/14/kodak-lomography-partner-vow-keep-film-photography-alive/
I have a general idea of the agreement between EK and KA, but like most, have never seen actual contractual details.

The way I understand it, Kodak Alaris has no rights whatsoever. MP film was left with EK, KA has the rights for still film.

 

[trendland]

What I'm still trying to understand is what's the point of cinestill if portra 400 is using the same technology.

That is a realy good question - but notice, it is not the same emmulsion.
It is just what one could name :
"The same film family" additional you just will notice the improvoment to
Thungsten

with regards

 

[trendland]

That is a realy good question - but notice, it is not the same emmulsion.
It is just what one could name :
"The same film family" additional you just will notice the improvoment to
Thungsten

with regards

Sorry just have a little correction:

Portras are out of the same emmulsion
family - not so different as improved
emmulsions with the same technology from the Motion Pictute Films

with regards

 

[Rudeofus]

What I'm still trying to understand is what's the point of cinestill if portra 400 is using the same technology.

Cinestill 800 is ISO 500 tungsten balanced, Portra 400 is ISO 400 daylight balanced. In a place with tungsten light illumination Portra 400 + Wratten 80A filter will effectively be an ISO 100 setup, giving Cinestill a factor five speed advantage. Sadly, there is no Portra 400T or anything like it.

 

[noeru]

Cinestill 800 is ISO 500 tungsten balanced, Portra 400 is ISO 400 daylight balanced. In a place with tungsten light illumination Portra 400 + Wratten 80A filter will effectively be an ISO 100 setup, giving Cinestill a factor five speed advantage. Sadly, there is no Portra 400T or anything like it.

My understanding is that ISO 100 to 500 is more like 2 point something factor? I don't mean to diss the efforts of the guys at cinestill, it's just that the process makes it so incredibly expensive ( nearly 3 times the price of Portra in Europe, possibly 4 in the US) for something that isn't different enough for me to justify that cost. Portra pushes up to 3200 with decent results, so even with a filter you can probably get similar results, and without the halation, so I still don't see the point.

 

[chassis]

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.

 

[Richard Man]

I have 4 rolls of CineStill 120 waiting for me to be used. Of course, just by coincidence, all 3 of my Hasselblad back are loaded with film right now (usually I have two loaded...) so have to finish one roll before I can do the test.

I mainly use Portra 160 and 400, and some Portra 800 on the Hassy, so would be interesting to see how the CineStill compares. I like the colors that I see. Warmer than Portra from what I can see...

 

[trendland]

I have 4 rolls of CineStill 120 waiting for me to be used. Of course, just by coincidence, all 3 of my Hasselblad back are loaded with film right now (usually I have two loaded...) so have to finish one roll before I can do the test.

I mainly use Portra 160 and 400, and some Portra 800 on the Hassy, so would be interesting to see how the CineStill compares. I like the colors that I see. Warmer than Portra from what I can see...

Good idea (to try out the cinestill800)
don't forget the Thungsten ballance.
From my understanding - the older (not inproved portra800 are more grainy.
Even a bit more grainy than portra400 (new) pushed to ISO 800.

with regards

 

[trendland]

My understanding is that ISO 100 to 500 is more like 2 point something factor? I don't mean to diss the efforts of the guys at cinestill, it's just that the process makes it so incredibly expensive ( nearly 3 times the price of Portra in Europe, possibly 4 in the US) for something that isn't different enough for me to justify that cost. Portra pushes up to 3200 with decent results, so even with a filter you can probably get similar results, and without the halation, so I still don't see the point.

Ok - comming to ISO3200 with portra.
I would say - therefore the results with
Cinestill800 should be less grainy.
Bit this works only with Thungsten because of the lost speed with filters.


with regards

 

[Rudeofus]

My understanding is that ISO 100 to 500 is more like 2 point something factor?

It's a 2 1/4 stop speed difference, or a linear factor of 5. ISO speed is a linear measure of film sensitivity. Aperture stops are logarithmic, and the term 'factor' seems unfitting to me.

I don't mean to diss the efforts of the guys at cinestill, it's just that the process makes it so incredibly expensive ( nearly 3 times the price of Portra in Europe, possibly 4 in the US) for something that isn't different enough for me to justify that cost. Portra pushes up to 3200 with decent results, so even with a filter you can probably get similar results, and without the halation, so I still don't see the point.

1. These are mostly Kodak's efforts, not so much Cinestill's. Confectioning film is orders of magnitude easier than making a 500T emulsion.
2. You can push Portra all you want, but shadow detail will be crap. Some scenarios will handle this better than others.
3. If you self mix color chemistry, cost difference between C-41 and ECN-2 is negligible.

The biggest problem with Cinestill films is their lack of anti halation layer, spot highlights within the image frame look "interesting", euphemistically speaking. Since Cinestill 800 in 120 format is a custom coating anyway, I wonder how difficult it would have been to sneak in an anti halation layer, or whether they did this anyway. My first roll is still in the mail ...

 

[trendland]

It's a 2 1/4 stop speed difference, or a linear factor of 5. ISO speed is a linear measure of film sensitivity. Aperture stops are logarithmic, and the term 'factor' seems unfitting to me.

1. These are mostly Kodak's efforts, not so much Cinestill's. Confectioning film is orders of magnitude easier than making a 500T emulsion.
2. You can push Portra all you want, but shadow detail will be crap. Some scenarios will handle this better than others.
3. If you self mix color chemistry, cost difference between C-41 and ECN-2 is negligible.

The biggest problem with Cinestill films is their lack of anti halation layer, spot highlights within the image frame look "interesting", euphemistically speaking. Since Cinestill 800 in 120 format is a custom coating anyway, I wonder how difficult it would have been to sneak in an anti halation layer, or whether they did this anyway. My first roll is still in the mail ...

I have 4 rolls of CineStill 120 waiting for me to be used. Of course, just by coincidence, all 3 of my Hasselblad back are loaded with film right now (usually I have two loaded...) so have to finish one roll before I can do the test.

I mainly use Portra 160 and 400, and some Portra 800 on the Hassy, so would be interesting to see how the CineStill compares. I like the colors that I see. Warmer than Portra from what I can see...

I agree with that comparison - interessting could be if there is a difference in grain between Portra 800
and Cinestill.
It it differed a bit - Portra800 is not improved from Kodak.
Or am I wrong? Did Kodak anounced at any time : "new Portra800 - improved
emulsion" I can't remember this.

with regards

 

[trendland]

It's a 2 1/4 stop speed difference, or a linear factor of 5. ISO speed is a linear measure of film sensitivity. Aperture stops are logarithmic, and the term 'factor' seems unfitting to me.

1. These are mostly Kodak's efforts, not so much Cinestill's. Confectioning film is orders of magnitude easier than making a 500T emulsion.
2. You can push Portra all you want, but shadow detail will be crap. Some scenarios will handle this better than others.
3. If you self mix color chemistry, cost difference between C-41 and ECN-2 is negligible.

The biggest problem with Cinestill films is their lack of anti halation layer, spot highlights within the image frame look "interesting", euphemistically speaking. Since Cinestill 800 in 120 format is a custom coating anyway, I wonder how difficult it would have been to sneak in an anti halation layer, or whether they did this anyway. My first roll is still in the mail ...

Just coming back shortly to developement aspects with Cinestill 800.
You mentioned self mixed color chemestry.

The most would be lucky with the method that is recomanded from cinestill to develop it in a simple c41 standard process.
Therefore you have to pay. Cinestill is not
the very cheapest film.AND with removed
ramjet-layer every c41 lab can't get in trouble.

By the time - with your chemistry, it is
only the question it you have in use
manufacturer kits or it you work with
your own c41 formulas.

In the second way it makes no difference
to be in use of the original ecn2 chemisty.

No differences in regard of the possability to work with other formulations.
As I have it in mind ecn2 has no outstanding chemical compounds with
problems to get.
But at least there is a question of difference in color.
Most say colors would be nearly the same - as c41 is not as different to ecn2.
Most difference is in the ramjet removing
part of the ecn2 process.
I am not sure aboud this.
Could imagine it make indeed a difference - but we will see.

Thinking - nobody today has a comparison between both methods.
Most are lucky to be able to use a comercial lab.
And comercial labs are lucky too - being
sure not to fish "ramjet soup" of their tanks or have to remove rests of it from
other developed films.
RAMJET CONTAMINATED TANKS

with regards

 

[Rudeofus]

Since ECN-2 process used CD-3 as active color developing agent, as opposed to C-41's CD-4, we should expect a difference in dye hues. If C-41 lab processing is all you have, then Cinestill 800T in C-41 would be better than 80A filtered Portra 400 with a two stop push. I's much easier to fix off colors than two stop underexposure. Scientific side by side comparisons between ECN-2 and C-41 development are rare because the film is bloody expensive.

 

[Rudeofus]

It it differed a bit - Portra800 is not improved from Kodak.
Or am I wrong? Did Kodak anounced at any time : "new Portra800 - improved
emulsion" I can't remember this.

Yes, Portra 800 was not updated at the time new Portra 160 and 400 hit the market, so technologically it's an older product than Cinestill 800T.

 

[chassis]

Interesting comment about Portra 800. I have shot one roll of Portra 800-135 and several 120 rolls and 4x5 sheets of Portra 400. To me the 800 has a different feel than 400, which is consistent with it being "not updated". Haven't shot Portra 160 lately for the full family comparison.

 

[Helinophoto]

Scientific side by side comparisons between ECN-2 and C-41 development are rare because the film is bloody expensive.

Not really, Vision3 can he bad for $120 for 1000 feet if you google around, I bought loads of 500T and 50D.
It does have the remjet-layer though, so it's a bit messy to bulk and develop yourself, but it's super-cheap when you do. (I filter my chemicals when I process these films and physically drag off the remjet before STAB by hanging the film in the shower and using a very wet, very soft paper-tissue).

ECN-2, even though the recipes for making it yourself is readily available, is out of reach for me, I cannot get hold the chemicals.

This guy ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2667323&postcount=38 ) did a comparison between ECN-2, RA-4 (paper) AND C-41, those were tweaked scans and there was hardly any difference to my eye. Unfortunately his photo's are no longer online.

 

[trendland]

Not really, Vision3 can he bad for $120 for 1000 feet if you google around, I bought loads of 500T and 50D.
It does have the remjet-layer though, so it's a bit messy to bulk and develop yourself, but it's super-cheap when you do. (I filter my chemicals when I process these films and physically drag off the remjet before STAB by hanging the film in the shower and using a very wet, very soft paper-tissue).

ECN-2, even though the recipes for making it yourself is readily available, is out of reach for me, I cannot get hold the chemicals.

This guy ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2667323&postcount=38 ) did a comparison between ECN-2, RA-4 (paper) AND C-41, those were tweaked scans and there was hardly any difference to my eye. Unfortunately his photo's are no longer online.

I am not afraid of ramjet too but let this be ( for a while ) a little secret - OK ....... pssssst.

Because I have to order first some cans !!! They where sold out between and psssst .... have a short look on Kodaks official price list.


with regards