Kodak 5219 movie film in c41

bobmercier · Jul 30, 2011

I got ahold of some 5219 from work and loaded it
into a bulk cartridge. Developed normally using a Tetenal
kit. The images are cool, as expected; the Kodak web site recommends
a Wratten 85 filter (daylight warming) which I didn't have. The
adjusted image is a quick digital warming/contrast of the
scan. I was a little worried about the rem-jet backing but decided
to ignore it and use the chemicals one-shot; after the blix 90% of
it was already gone and the rest came off easily with running water.

I know, ECN2, etc., well this was primarily for amusement value...

Gerald C Koch · Jul 30, 2011

The rem-jet backing is best removed after the stop bath and before the blix. The carbon particles are very fine and would be hard to filter out from the blix. Under subdued light, first check to see if the rem-jet coating will come off easily. If not then soak the film for a couple of minutes in a 2% solution of sodium metaborate (Kodak Balanced Alkali). Remove the film from the reel and hang it up. Very gently wipe the base side vertically with a moistened photo grade sponge. Rinse the sponge and repeat if necessary. Be careful not to get any carbon particles on the emulsion side. Return the film to the reel and contnue the process.

Even with the recommended filter the color balance will be off since the C-41 developer is very different from the recommended ECN-2 developer. It will also be a bit off because this film is intended to be printed on color positive stock. The color balance of the positive film is not the same as for color paper.

I have not processed this particular film but others can give good results if the ECN-2 developer is used. Substitute formulas for home processing can be found on the web.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 2, 2011

Bob ,

You did a great experiment and very very useful post where these films comes extremelly cheap. May be I can buy a 100 feet and remove the remjet before going to my fat labman. Yes colors are serious and white rose looks very aesthetic. Green is correct but blue scared me litle bit , wall and bokeh area looks like a Jean. This blue is a new trend in cinema films and I dont like it but for me , try and find the best.

thank you for this useful post ,

Umut
Istanbul

BetterSense · Aug 2, 2011

It would be really cool if Kodak came out with printing paper that was designed for optical printing from ECN-2. Is that even possible? Would there be a problem with releasing ECN film without rem-jet, for still camera use? I mean, Vision 500T looks like a super-badass film. And everyone says that movie film sales prop up still film sales, well, why not standardize still film to motion picture film technology?

Athiril · Aug 3, 2011

ECN-2 developer is cheap. When I ran 5219 through Flexicolor it came out amazingly horrid. Can you post a copy of the histogram from the scanner preview if this is a neg scan? It tells me a lot about the neg.

BetterSense said:
It would be really cool if Kodak came out with printing paper that was designed for optical printing from ECN-2. Is that even possible? Would there be a problem with releasing ECN film without rem-jet, for still camera use? I mean, Vision 500T looks like a super-badass film. And everyone says that movie film sales prop up still film sales, well, why not standardize still film to motion picture film technology?

ECN-2 uses CD-3 not CD-4 like C-41, and ECN-2 dev is already cheap. Remjet is easy to deal with in a hand tank and alkaline presoak with agitation (which I follow with rinse, then rinse with diluted white vinegar, and rinse), any left over remnants can be wiped off at the end. I squeegee with fingers several times in the stabiliser bath (with nitrile gloves).

R Paul · Aug 3, 2011

I used some Vision2 500t (unknown age and storage) for existing light shooting at night, and I was surprised at how well it handled any kind of light you could give it. I used regular c-41 processing and took the rem jet off at the end(messy!).

If I were to go to a museum or even a concert, this would be a film to use.
My daughter actually used it at a rock show and got a couple good shots. If she remembered to stop jumping up and down when she shot them, there would have been more keepers.

r paul

Athiril · Aug 4, 2011

You mean 500T, only Fuji has 500D (Reala 500D).

Subsequent rinsing will not remove all remjet on some films. Some films it just falls off really easily, some films it is too stubborn, squeege it at some point as a test and look at your fingers for black particles.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 4, 2011

R Paul ,

Are these are print scans or film scans. I liked first two too much , first one looks like scanned the printed with a cheap scanner , there is something like paper grain. But if its on the film , I accept it because this grain add a depth to details. Its like scanning a newspaper page and strong light reveals the paper fibers. First one really kept my interest. Second one is excellent , elegant.
But third and fourth ones have blue cast , looks like a cheap 1 dollar jean from china. Not my taste. If you have daylight ones , please post them.

Cruzinggoose ,

Thank you for the tip.

Umut

R Paul · Aug 5, 2011

These are film scans from an epson4870. I was basically walking around at night trying out the film in places I could never get a shot without a tripod and time exposures . Also I wanted to see what it would do under different lighting. Tungsten (naturally) did very well, but did a surprisingly good job with fluorescents ( the bunny shot ). The artifacts could be me removing the rem-jet--It was tough to get the last bits off, it may be the film was old and not at its best, or I could be asking too much of the film. As for the blue cast, I thought the third one was okay,while the last IS blueish,it was shot under mercury vapor bulbs. I guess you could correct with a filter or maybe post work, but to me it looked like a night scene should (my opinion of course).
I did run some daylight sets, but have to see if I have then on hard copy ,as my computer crashed a while ago.
r paul

bobmercier · Aug 14, 2011

So, I had another try at this film/dev combo (my last) and felt,
in the interest of full disclosure I'd post the results. Not sure of
the rules regarding external links but here goes:

https://picasaweb.google.com/114539835266038554850/Kodak5219?authuser=0&feat=directlink

I thought I was pretty careful with the exposure and development but, apparently, was /not/ careful about removing the rem-jet but that's not
the cause of the uneven color.

It seems like even slight under/over exposure really throws off the result. The couple that are passable also seem to have the most even exposure.

On to something else!

imageminister · Aug 2, 2013

YES, very interesting indeed. The blue cast is because 5219 is a Tungsten rated film (3200°K). Use the 85B and wham your dialed in!

Thanks for sharing this!

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
Bob ,

You did a great experiment and very very useful post where these films comes extremelly cheap. May be I can buy a 100 feet and remove the remjet before going to my fat labman. Yes colors are serious and white rose looks very aesthetic. Green is correct but blue scared me litle bit , wall and bokeh area looks like a Jean. This blue is a new trend in cinema films and I dont like it but for me , try and find the best.

thank you for this useful post ,

Umut
Istanbul

AgX · Aug 4, 2013

BetterSense said:
It would be really cool if Kodak came out with printing paper that was designed for optical printing from ECN-2. Is that even possible?

Yes. Except for ecomics as this not merely means exchanging the base but the emulsion too, as we are know
speaking of reflected light viewing.

BetterSense said:
Would there be a problem with releasing ECN film without rem-jet, for still camera use? I mean, Vision 500T looks like a super-badass film.

No. Except for economics... Though here it is a minor isue of leaving out just one step in coating.
Furthermore now there are other elements available to substitute the rem-jet layer, making removal of a layer obsolate.

BetterSense said:
And everyone says that movie film sales prop up still film sales, well, why not standardize still film to motion picture film technology?

That would be motion picture print-films. Sales of motion picture films are decreasing too.

Melting both systems nevertheless could be a way to go. Be aware though that now both systems employ different contrast ratios for their materials.

Kodak 5219 movie film in c41

bobmercier

Attachments

Gerald C Koch

Mustafa Umut Sarac

BetterSense

Athiril

R Paul

Attachments

Athiril

Mustafa Umut Sarac

R Paul

bobmercier

imageminister

AgX

Kodak 5219 movie film in c41

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency