Kodak are understood to be testing with trade users new vision 3 films for motion picture without a remjet layer , replaced by a standard ahu which would also makes it easier to process for still photography. This is distinct from vision 3 without remjet made for cinestill with halation effects. The below is understood to be a briefing note for the new films but is not ‘publicly’ available yet, posted by memorylabfilm in australia.
Kodak planning to replace remjet on vision 3 films
-
A
- Thread starter Arcadia4
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
-
For Sale Three (3) Negative holders for Beseler 23C, II, III
- Started by J Durr
Forum statistics
Sounds great. Thanks for posting.
Will it be a case of "one film fits all"?
Will it be a case of "one film fits all"?
The thing that does need to be kept in mind is that Remjet was the cheapest-per-foot 'good enough' solution, rather than the best solution. B&W cine doesn't use remjet, which has presented problems with some 2-perf movements, as the pressure plates are essentially untreated/ unpainted metal.
I would not be surprised if it had (in part) to do with micro-scratches showing up in scans etc from the physical removal process.
I would not be surprised if it had (in part) to do with micro-scratches showing up in scans etc from the physical removal process.
That's great news. Thanks for posting.
Source needs to be verified.
That's conceivable, as well as artifacts from incomplete/imperfect remjet removal. It's pretty difficult to get it ALL off. It's not difficult to get most of the remjet off so that it doesn't show up on small and mid-sized prints. But it's quite challenging to avoid any tiny marks/spots that are visible on high magnifications. And indeed, since remjet removal by necessity involves a mechanical removal step, there's a considerable risk to damage to the film base.
This might also explain why Kodak has been trying to put a stop to still photography use of present Vision3. Today, the presence of remjet is kind of a practical hurdle/barrier that will keep some people from shooting this film. When that's gone, what remains is a CN equivalent to the E100D situation where it'll be very difficult to protect the still film business at its substantially higher price point.
BW is BW; no special developers needed, or, if you will, develop as you please. Double X is in my experience a technically reasonably good, albeit relatively grainy (for its speed) product.
CD3 is easy to obtain today and a perfectly functional ECN2 developer is easy to make. C41 bleach and fix can be used for ECN2 film without reserve.
AFAIK, internegative and projection films have already since years versions without rem-jet. They have three different layers in exchange to cover rem-jet duties (antihalation, antistatic, scratch protection and transport lubrication).
There also some discussion about it here, so looks like its been on the cards for a while. This includes posts on films using 35mm variant in current production and a link to a test for the 16mm stock at TCS New York.
https://cinematography.com/index.ph...-stocks-will-ditch-the-remjet-layer/#comments
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. The mention of bulk rolls of Portra excites me more than Vision3 without rem-jet...
Or they're going to go the other way round, and adopt C-41 for cinema - CD-4 has strong advantages over CD-3 and the only real reason why Kodak didn't jump to CD-4 and CD-6 across the board 50+ years ago was because of anti-trust legal threats from competitors.
It would also solve the need for a high speed daylight balanced cinema neg stock very efficiently.
Transition all ECN-2 films in all formats from rem-jet to AHU and then... kill all those ECN-2 films and start producing C-41 cine negative film? I thought that Kodak was done throwing money away.
I mean, your idea seems obvious and logical, but considering what they've done, it doesn't seem that Kodak thinks the same.
I've had a brief look at the sample footage linked to there (which can be found here: )
The halation performance looks quite similar to what I'm used to in regular remjet-backed Vision3. Seems like whatever measures they've taken against halation, it's effective enough in my book. Mind you, I've shot it in still cameras only with a regular black/non-reflective pressure plate.
I wonder to what extent the differences are very relevant in today's technological landscape. But who knows. It's interesting to note that Kodak will be releasing 1000ft cine rolls of Portra films. Btw, my post you quoted reflected on cutting the supply of Vision3 cine stock for still photographers. That's a different topic than what you bring to the fore above; also relevant and interesting of course.
C-41 across the board would mean one set of couplers and a unified negative design system, not a single set of films - in fact, it would make designing new stocks faster, easier and cheaper as they wouldn't be running on only vaguely parallel tracks. Designing the cinema stocks to their usual CI, MTF characteristics etc and the still stocks to their usual 0.62 CI etc would probably remain the case, but moving on from ECN-2 might not be a bad thing (it's a process really meant for safe industrial use, not potential home use - unlike C-41). It would also be potentially beneficial for Harman Technology, for example.
It also would make it easier/ more viable to offer a softer gradient still CN film (which is really most of what people are seeing when they get obsessed over ECN films).
Last edited:
Wouldn't that imply that not all of the entities associated with film making have necessarily got our( the consumers) interests at heart all of the time?
pentaxuser
MattKing
Moderator
I wonder if the constituent components used to make up the C41 based products require less importation from China and other international sources than the ECN-2 based products?
Hm... what a test. Shining a light into the camera - that`s how you test for lens flare... but not halation. To check for halation you put a strong light on a white object having a dark background behind - or alike.
But ok, halation isn't strong.
| 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:  |