Wel, 'rumor has it' that it's old Ferrania stock leftover from the early 2000s that surfaced in Japan. I don't know if it's reliable or where the information traces to. If it's really old film, it should become pretty evident very soon due to the high level of fog.
Ilford Color Negative Film
-
A
- Thread starter dave olson
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera with 4x5 Back
- Started by Barlow
-
Free 3 kits of kodak flexicolor developer, Free in Portland Oregon
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Horseman 6x12 roll film back
- Started by OlliJ
-
For Sale Lot of rvp100, Kodak EPP and rvp50
- Started by peter_guo1
Forum statistics
Wel, 'rumor has it' that it's old Ferrania stock leftover from the early 2000s that surfaced in Japan. I don't know if it's reliable or where the information traces to. If it's really old film, it should become pretty evident very soon due to the high level of fog.
There is not always fog, sometimes it is not visible to the eye. True, it won't be like new in 20 years, but if you don't actually know its source and original specs, it might just pass. It's not like they didn't sell such films under different brands 
If you compare 20-year old color film to fresh film, the difference in base density is usually clearly visible, even if the film is stored refrigerated. This of course still leaves open the possibility of minor miracles for some reason.
I agree, but the key is not knowing what's actually inside the cartridge. It has been rebranded, with changed specifications and marketed as new.
The old Ferrania 200 colour film was nice. I used lots of it in the day as I could get it free with processing, very nice colours and decent grain. THe 400 was OK for 6x4 or 7x5 prints but not much else, and didn't handle under exposure well at all. Nice colours again but too grainy for big enlargements. I'd imagine the 200 has aged reasonably well. Though it should not be sold as a new product, in my opinion.
13,5€ for what's probably 250D? Really?
on the same shop silbersalz (without dev) was around the same price, so...
Interesting...
So far there was Ilford Ilfocolor 400 Vintage 24exp. that was believed to be the same as Orwo NC500 (produced by Inoviscoat). Maybe this Cine Tone is NC400?
Ilford Imaging Europe website doesn't have any information on either Vintage or Cine Tone film...
So far there was Ilford Ilfocolor 400 Vintage 24exp. that was believed to be the same as Orwo NC500 (produced by Inoviscoat). Maybe this Cine Tone is NC400?
Ilford Imaging Europe website doesn't have any information on either Vintage or Cine Tone film...
MattKing
Moderator
The Cassette says "Process ECN-2 Only".
There isn't a colour negative film that won't give you a picture if you process it in ECN-2. Besides, Orwo says that you can process NC500 in ECN-2, too.
But, you are probably right, that "Process ECN-2 Only" probably is a clue that this is a Vision 3 5207 or 5219 with remjet. And if you look at the picture the base does indeed look like it has a remjet.
Should be interesting if this film appears in US. CineStill obviously will be forced to defend their "Cine" trademark. This film might get a new name, like "Ilfocolor 400 Motion Picture Film Tone". Just rolls off the tongue...
Descriptors: Motion picture film for still photographers
CINESTILL® is a suggestive trademark, comprised of the words CINE (deriving from the Greek "kine" for motion) and STILL (from a film STILL photograph taken on the set of a movie or TV show during production). It may seem like an oxymoron but it implies distinction from either meaning.
“CINE film” is the term commonly used in English and historically in the US to refer to 8mm, and 16mm home movie film formats. It is not used to refer to larger professional cinema formats such as 35mm or 65mm film. "Movie film" is the common informal term for "motion picture film", the standard formal way of referring to 35 mm or 65 mm cinema film throughout the industry. Therefore “CINE” has acquired secondary meaning in the photography market (in addition to its use as an abbreviated version of “Cinema” for smaller motion picture formats) as a nickname for CineStill films, and has become distinctive through CineStill’s substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce.
Although CINESTILL® film coexists with other motion picture based film larger than 16mm in the photography market, those products would not be accurately described as "Cine film” (benefiting from the goodwill CineStill has generated around the phrase). Instead, the standard way of referring to these types of films throughout the industry is as "motion picture film.”
Infringement:
Name: Cine200 film
Descriptors: 35mm Tungsten negative film
But, you are probably right, that "Process ECN-2 Only" probably is a clue that this is a Vision 3 5207 or 5219 with remjet. And if you look at the picture the base does indeed look like it has a remjet.
Should be interesting if this film appears in US. CineStill obviously will be forced to defend their "Cine" trademark. This film might get a new name, like "Ilfocolor 400 Motion Picture Film Tone". Just rolls off the tongue...
TRADEMARK EXAMPLES:
Trademark: CineStill®Descriptors: Motion picture film for still photographers
CINESTILL® is a suggestive trademark, comprised of the words CINE (deriving from the Greek "kine" for motion) and STILL (from a film STILL photograph taken on the set of a movie or TV show during production). It may seem like an oxymoron but it implies distinction from either meaning.
“CINE film” is the term commonly used in English and historically in the US to refer to 8mm, and 16mm home movie film formats. It is not used to refer to larger professional cinema formats such as 35mm or 65mm film. "Movie film" is the common informal term for "motion picture film", the standard formal way of referring to 35 mm or 65 mm cinema film throughout the industry. Therefore “CINE” has acquired secondary meaning in the photography market (in addition to its use as an abbreviated version of “Cinema” for smaller motion picture formats) as a nickname for CineStill films, and has become distinctive through CineStill’s substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce.
Although CINESTILL® film coexists with other motion picture based film larger than 16mm in the photography market, those products would not be accurately described as "Cine film” (benefiting from the goodwill CineStill has generated around the phrase). Instead, the standard way of referring to these types of films throughout the industry is as "motion picture film.”
Infringement:
Name: Cine200 film
Descriptors: 35mm Tungsten negative film
Last edited:
The above quote seems to contradict the term home movie. I recall my father buying Kodachrome 8mm and then Super 8 mm film labled as movie film but as this was over a half century ago this recollection is vague. I was “conscripted” to splice home movies together so had a bit of hands on experience.
Also going to the cinema is going to see a movie in a large establishment and not home movies! As well there was (maybe still is) a movie theater in Seattle named the Cinerama that feature a very large curved screen. I saw a number of sci-fi movies there until the mid 80s when I moved to Alaska.
Also going to the cinema is going to see a movie in a large establishment and not home movies! As well there was (maybe still is) a movie theater in Seattle named the Cinerama that feature a very large curved screen. I saw a number of sci-fi movies there until the mid 80s when I moved to Alaska.
Kodak before the time of Super 8 called their home movie film "Cine-Kodak" in many markets.
Which ones? Did some searching on the auction site. Here is one from Oz of Kodachrome II 8mm labeled as movie film. Note pix of boxes indicating it was made in Rochester, New York:
Kodachrome II Movie Film Kodak Magazine Double 8mm Movie Cameras Sealed Expired | eBay
Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Kodachrome II Movie Film Kodak Magazine Double 8mm Movie Cameras Sealed Expired at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
www.ebay.com
you just have to go back far enough https://www.ebay.com/itm/235248142530
and you can find lots of Cine-Kodak cameras.
and you can find lots of Cine-Kodak cameras.
MattKing
Moderator
Around our dinner table, cine and motion picture were used relatively interchangeably.
Of course, the Canadian Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing lab that my father was Customer Service manager of for 22+ years only really existed because of the volume of Regular 8 and Super 8 and 16mm Cine/Motion Picture film that ran through those machines. Once video came to the fore, Kodachrome's and that lab's days were numbered.
Of course, the Canadian Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing lab that my father was Customer Service manager of for 22+ years only really existed because of the volume of Regular 8 and Super 8 and 16mm Cine/Motion Picture film that ran through those machines. Once video came to the fore, Kodachrome's and that lab's days were numbered.
1956. I was only two years old so do not recall, ROTFL!
"cine" film was and remains far more common in the UK than "movie film". As far as I am aware, everyone in the UK who talked about 8mm and 16mm amateur movies talked about cine cameras and cine film. Even into the late 80s when 8mm and super 8 had seriously declined, you could still get them at Boots and Argos....and they were described as "cine film". Until very recently we also pretty much always referred to "going to the cinema" rather than "the movies"...though possibly "the pictures", or "the flicks" depending on geographical location.
There isn't a colour negative film that won't give you a picture if you process it in ECN-2. Besides, Orwo says that you can process NC500 in ECN-2, too.
But, you are probably right, that "Process ECN-2 Only" probably is a clue that this is a Vision 3 5207 or 5219 with remjet. And if you look at the picture the base does indeed look like it has a remjet.
Should be interesting if this film appears in US. CineStill obviously will be forced to defend their "Cine" trademark. This film might get a new name, like "Ilfocolor 400 Motion Picture Film Tone". Just rolls off the tongue...
TRADEMARK EXAMPLES:
Trademark: CineStill®
Descriptors: Motion picture film for still photographers
CINESTILL® is a suggestive trademark, comprised of the words CINE (deriving from the Greek "kine" for motion) and STILL (from a film STILL photograph taken on the set of a movie or TV show during production). It may seem like an oxymoron but it implies distinction from either meaning.
“CINE film” is the term commonly used in English and historically in the US to refer to 8mm, and 16mm home movie film formats. It is not used to refer to larger professional cinema formats such as 35mm or 65mm film. "Movie film" is the common informal term for "motion picture film", the standard formal way of referring to 35 mm or 65 mm cinema film throughout the industry. Therefore “CINE” has acquired secondary meaning in the photography market (in addition to its use as an abbreviated version of “Cinema” for smaller motion picture formats) as a nickname for CineStill films, and has become distinctive through CineStill’s substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce.
Although CINESTILL® film coexists with other motion picture based film larger than 16mm in the photography market, those products would not be accurately described as "Cine film” (benefiting from the goodwill CineStill has generated around the phrase). Instead, the standard way of referring to these types of films throughout the industry is as "motion picture film.”
Infringement:
Name: Cine200 film
Descriptors: 35mm Tungsten negative film
CineStill believing they own the word "CINE" in brand and product names relating to still photography film is totally delusional. I wonder if they think they also own "STILL" for photographic film products?
I still don't really understand why people buy this stuff. To me it just seems foolish. No one is printing. If you scan every negative you can alter the image to look like anything.
availability (traditional color film is not easy to be found), price (although this version is not dirty cheap), look (not everyone needs a perfect color palette), process (ra4 printing is quite rare, so every color film needs to go through a scanner regardless)
That's pertinently not incorrect.
no one is printing ra-4 (unfortunately), because there's close to no labs available anymore and diy-ing requires pain and money. So yeah, lots of people are not printing because online sharing is enough for them (a shame), and those who are printing are frequently doing it the digital way so...
It's very hard to fill the blue channel with daylight balanced film shot in tungsten light. No scanning will help with that.
Now, with high prices, unavailability of Kodak colour negative film is very very rare. Most of the time they have ALL of their films in stock. Of course, Fuji has NONE, but they are history anyway. But those Ilford colour negative films are priced higher than anything from Kodak, so that can't be the reason. Other oddball films are also not really competing with lower prices. I guess there is enough people that like variety and don't really care about predictability in their results.
Last edited:
No, that's not correct. The exact number is hard to establish, of course, but consider these clusters of printers who are still active today:
* Commercial fine-art printers dedicated to chromogenic prints; partly working for fine arts photographers, and party for the heritage sector (e.g. museums).
* 'Hipster' print finishers who have revitalized old optical minilabs to do smaller prints from film brought in by customers.
* Artists who use chromogenic print as a creative medium (i.e. people making a living, or trying to, with their art). Depending on the definition of 'art' you use, this could include an apparently growing number of young fashion photographers who use optical RA4 prints as a distinguishing element of their work.
* Color darkroom facilities used in an educational setting.
* Color community darkrooms used by amateur printers.
* Solitary amateur color printers.
It's very difficult to attach numbers to these categories, but I was surprised when I started to reach out for fellow color printers and I actually encountered others who are active in this area and often passionate about it. Some of them are in their late sixties, others in their early twenties.
You might want to check this out, too: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/list-of-color-darkroom-facilities.202221
This list has only just begun, so it's growing, still, and only covers a fraction of what's actually happening today. These are all color darkroom facilities in collective use (educational, commercial, artistic/community) so the individual amateur darkrooms are not even represented, nor are the printers who use shared facilities for lack of their own workspace.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |