First experience with Kodak Vision3 500T cine film

volver · May 15, 2014

Hi,
I want to share my first experience with kodak vision3 500t film developed in C-41 (rollei digibase). I love the colors from this film a lot.
I found 120m film can on Ebay for $30, dated 2008 and was looking for 85b filter to shoot in daylight (Couldnt find anything in Russia, bought one from Australia).

Here are some results (ISO is actual, as i used 2.4x factor 85b filter). Original ISO for artificial light is 500, for daylight - 320, optimal with daylight 85b filter - 125-160. No color correction and no digital ICE used, nikon coolscan V

ISO 125, Leica elmar 90/4

ISO 200, Leica elmar 90/4

ISO 400, Summicron rigid 50/2 (cropped)

darkosaric · May 15, 2014

Your first post here, so - welcome to APUG!

Nice results .

volver · May 15, 2014

Thanks!

AgX · May 15, 2014

Which process for the removal of the rem-jet layer did you apply?

volver · May 15, 2014

I've used 1 big spoon of baking soda in 3-4 liters of water. filled the tank with film with this solution, waited for 30 sec and agitated for additional 30 secons, later took off the film from the reel and "washed" off the rem-jet in the remaining solution with kitchen sponge. And only after that started the usual C-41 developing procees. Sorry for bad English.

gone · May 15, 2014

Very nice work. The hues are obviously different, but it reminds me of Agfa color films in a way. I like how it bumps up the warm colors and mutes the cool colors. That old Elmar you have is an excellent lens! Attractive model for the second shot.

wildbill · May 15, 2014

"Here are some results (ISO is actual, as i used 2.4x factor 85b filter). Original ISO for artificial light is 500, for daylight - 320, optimal with daylight 85b filter - 125-160. No color correction and no digital ICE used, nikon coolscan V"

I'm not sure how you're getting 125-160 iso but the iso for shooting this film in daylight with an 85 filter is 320.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 15, 2014

Welcome to APUG ! I think momus put everything in my mind. If the lens was not that good , if the light is not so well , what would be the result , I dont know. Lens handles lots of qualities of these shots.

Umut

wildbill · May 15, 2014

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
Welcome to APUG ! I think momus put everything in my mind. If the lens was not that good , if the light is not so well , what would be the result , I dont know. Lens handles lots of qualities of these shots.

Umut

?????

volver · May 15, 2014

Thanks to everybody for comments!

wildbill, I was using very old filter circa 1959, that's why it has such a big filter factor 2.4x (modern ones needs only 1/3-2/3 stops overexposure). Unfortunately I lost this filter and waiting for new one from fotoimpex (heliopan). All shots with 320 and higher ISO were underexposed, It was a test film, so I made shots from 125 to 1000 ISO, best shots with smallest grain and good shadows details were in 125-200 ISO range (with filter on). Also, please note that the film was made in 2008 (usually cine films are fresh for 2-3 years).

this weekend I'll try this film with artificial light and will post results too.

yulia_s_rey · May 15, 2014

welcome to apug! very nice results

Xmas · May 15, 2014

A single costed lens especially without a tight filter like a FISON, will pastel colours and give the film a different signature.

Overexposing a stop won't be bad and holds faces under peaked caps.

REMJET hangs on to highlights real good.

StoneNYC · May 15, 2014

Xmas said:
A single costed lens especially without a tight filter like a FISON, will pastel colours and give the film a different signature.

Overexposing a stop won't be bad and holds faces under peaked caps.

REMJET hangs on to highlights real good.

?

RemJet shouldn't have any effect on the exposure/highlights at all, it's simply there to prevent halos...

OP (original poster) welcome!

I understood you just fine, your English is much better than my Russian!

I've done some shots in C-41 with this same film and the image did not come out even half this good... So you have done a good job!

I look forward to the second test results!

Пока!

Xmas · May 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
?

RemJet shouldn't have any effect on the exposure/highlights at all, it's simply there to prevent halos...

If you remove it like cine still you are going to get more than just halos on highlights...

dehk · May 15, 2014

I like the color of the last photo.

volver · May 15, 2014

Here are two other photos shot with higher ISO

ISO 500, summicron rigid, light color correction, blacks and whites corrected

ISO 640, summicron rigid, light color correction, blacks and whites corrected

StoneNYC · May 15, 2014

Xmas said:
If you remove it like cine still you are going to get more than just halos on highlights...

Huh? I'm not following...

volver · May 15, 2014

And, thanks for warm welcome!

Rudeofus · May 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Huh? I'm not following...

There is a film called Dead Link Removed, which is 500T film with the remjet already removed, sold in 35mm cartridges. Because the remjet backing is not there during the photo shoot, considerable halos appear in the final image if strong highlights are in the image.

StoneNYC · May 15, 2014

Rudeofus said:
There is a film called Dead Link Removed, which is 500T film with the remjet already removed, sold in 35mm cartridges. Because the remjet backing is not there during the photo shoot, considerable halos appear in the final image if strong highlights are in the image.

Oh!

Yes I suppose, but that's like any anti-halation layer...

Rudeofus · May 16, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Yes I suppose, but that's like any anti-halation layer...

The thread starter used straight 500T film with the remjet backing, and had to remove that remjet before processing. Cinestill is aimed at people who don't do their own processing but drop their film off at some C41 minilab, and these places would be very unhappy with remjet messing up their processor tanks and rollers. As a result, volver gets better results with regard to halos, but he still gets odd colors because of his cross processing with C41 chemistry. Remember that 500T is an ECN-2 film.

StoneNYC · May 16, 2014

Rudeofus said:
The thread starter used straight 500T film with the remjet backing, and had to remove that remjet before processing. Cinestill is aimed at people who don't do their own processing but drop their film off at some C41 minilab, and these places would be very unhappy with remjet messing up their processor tanks and rollers. As a result, volver gets better results with regard to halos, but he still gets odd colors because of his cross processing with C41 chemistry. Remember that 500T is an ECN-2 film.

I know it's ECN-2 I have a few hindered feet of it (actually I sold the 500T can I had and now only have the 250D stuff.

But I'm just saying that the statement that the RemJet "saves" the highlights or whatever the other poster said, is not accurate in the way it comes off, almost any film made today has an anti-halation layer, RemJet is nothing special, just annoying because it doesn't dissolve in water.

I'm not sure if they needed a stronger backing because of high speed operation and scratch resistance, or they just wanted to be able to sell the movie industry on something different other than C-41 standard film, all I know is the market as it is would be a heck of a lot better for the company and for us guys if RemJet was replaced by a water soluble backing and if ECN-2 were just shifted to C-41, it's dumb to have 2 standards for the same type of film... They could just have one standard and produce larger runs instead of struggling to make small runs when their machine is so big.

Ok end of tangent rant... Just saying those using RemJet removed film are using film that is repurposed and redistributed by another company that is not kodak and I wouldn't consider it "good" film if it has no anti halation layer.

Xmas · May 16, 2014

The movie pros have the better film, exepting the lack of REMJET allows fewer mini lab steps, and is thereby cheaper.

You can mix the ECN chemicals up at home, think they did kits until resently.

Kchrome 25, 64 and 200 had REMJET...

AgX · May 16, 2014

There still are kits available but starting from 50L. There never had been amateur kits as far as I know.

MattKing · May 16, 2014

You wouldn't want to expose movie film at high speeds for slow motion shots without remjet.

The remjet backing is much "slippery-er" than the film base.

It also prevents static discharge.

See post #9 and #15 in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

First experience with Kodak Vision3 500T cine film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency