Perhaps ultimately the new V3 won't need to undergo any process to remove the remjet and might be cheaper respooled than the current material.
The 'perhaps' is redundant; if there's no remjet, there's no need to remove it either. That's pretty much inherent to this news. Also keep in mind Cinestill only in the beginning actually removed remjet. For quite some time they have been purchasing jumbo rolls without any remjet applied from Kodak; i.e. there never was any remjet on that film to begin with. It also doesn't have any antihalation protection as a result, and this is what will apparently change in a future (additional) product generation. It's not clear to me whether the new remjet-less product will completely replace the present product line or whether it'll be offered as a product line extension.
Or processing might be a bit cheaper, which will mean I'll use more in super 8.
I doubt processing will be cheaper in the motion picture landscape since the equipment is present already. The fact that the remjet removal bath & rollers don't have anything to remove won't save any cost.
It'll be easier for small & home labs because the remjet won't have to be dealt with. For the home user, the financial saving is insignificant, but it saves time evidently, and the result will be cleaner. For small scale labs I don't think it's likely they'll reduce list prices for processing; they'll just use whatever marginal gains to offset other factors that eat away at their (already marginal) profitability.
I don't think anything will get any cheaper as a result of this. Cleaner and simpler for home users, potentially.
The other bit which seems to go screaming over peoples' heads unnoticed is that the baseline cost/ ft of motion neg has to be very significantly lower than the cost/ ft of still neg. This is why stuff like Remjet was used - it was cheaper.
It doesn't go "screaming over peoples' heads unnoticed".
@lamerko addressed it in #21, I responded to it in #22 and the gist of that exchange is that we don't know the cost profile of both solutions. Apparently you do, but this is not common/public knowledge, so the qualification of it going over people's heads is really unwarranted. We'll have to take your word for the cost of remjet being lower than another form of AH countermeasures (and anti-static, anti-scratching, anti-friction etc.) I don't see how you could know how this will work out for EK, cost-wise, given the possibility of commonality with other products etc. In fact, from an accounting perspective I'd go so far as to say that it's inherently impossible to state with certainty which option will be more costly, as it depends to a large extent on accounting principles, not just technical differences and materials.
Then there's the ecosystem perspective of cost; it's not just relevant what the production cost for EK is (capex + opex), but also what the cost profile is for the other players in the ecosystem, and finally for the end user. Remjet might be cheaper to manufacture, but needs to be removed, which incurs costs elsewhere in the chain, to which possible costs of QA issues (damage or fouling of film due to remjet removal steps) would need to be added.
You state with quasi certainty that remjet is the cheaper option, but I have severe doubts that your certainty can be substantiated with a relevant, real-world cost breakdown. You don't have access to that information any more than the rest of us.
cinematography.com
