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.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Kodak planning to replace remjet on vision 3 films
-
A
- Thread starter Arcadia4
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Noblex Pro 6/150 E2 Medium Format Panoramic Camera
- Started by jbprichard
-
For Sale BRONICA EC BODY AND METERED VIEWFINDER for parts or repair
- Started by Simon Benton
-
For Sale BRONICA EC 6x6 TLR WITH 2 LENSES and 2 BACKS
- Started by Simon Benton
-
For Sale Billingham Hadley One Full Padded Insert (Olive)
- Started by logan2z
-
For Sale Darkroom Equipment For Quick Sale
- Started by oficinouno
Forum statistics
foc
Allowing Ads
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"?
Lachlan Young
Allowing Ads
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.
mshchem
Allowing Ads
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...
Lachlan Young
Allowing Ads
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.
Lachlan Young
Allowing Ads
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.
seems unlikely based on the last partially visible bullet point on the sheet above:
The "while the product with remjet is still in the market" seems a touch confusing, but I have a hard time seeing them release it as an ECN product and then changing it once the supplies of the older film is gone..
This is quite shocking news. Perhaps the temporary halt of the production lines had something to do with it.
It is interesting, however, why they are doing it. It will certainly be a relief for small formats like Super 8. It is really annoying to remove the coating in this format, which is often processed by hand. For 35mm or 65mm - it hardly matters. There, machine processing will do the job.
Without a doubt, putting AHU in the layers has a number of advantages, but it will also probably make the process more expensive. And I have little doubt that they will really be able to do it without any change compared to the current remjet version.
As for the probability of switching to CD4 - I think it is small. This would mean additional expensive research - it is not just changing the color couplers. Bringing the microcontrast to accurate sensimetric values will not be an easy task.
It is interesting, however, why they are doing it. It will certainly be a relief for small formats like Super 8. It is really annoying to remove the coating in this format, which is often processed by hand. For 35mm or 65mm - it hardly matters. There, machine processing will do the job.
Without a doubt, putting AHU in the layers has a number of advantages, but it will also probably make the process more expensive. And I have little doubt that they will really be able to do it without any change compared to the current remjet version.
As for the probability of switching to CD4 - I think it is small. This would mean additional expensive research - it is not just changing the color couplers. Bringing the microcontrast to accurate sensimetric values will not be an easy task.
I think the remark of @Lachlan Young should be interpreted in the context of a long-term outlook. It's conceivable that EK in their product roadmap at some point might migrate towards a single dye/dye coupler set.
I don't see that. I also don't really see how this is shocking?
Does it? I'm not sure, really. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on factors I don't think any of us has access to.
With all due respect, but this sounds to me like just a bunch of interesting words put together. I don't see a direct relation between microcontrast and sensitometry, and in any case, whatever problem might relate to these, Kodak seems to have tackled long ago when they introduced C41 films with excellent performance. Now, I can see something in the argument that it would require some (perhaps extensive) R&D to build a C41-based product with the same sensitometric performance as present-day Vision3. But the major question is whether the ecosystem would demand or even need such a product. Given the fact that the majority of productions based on film rely on a hybrid/scanning approach, there's no absolute requirement for a certain color balance. For the one or two oddball productions that would involve a direct negative to print process (when was the last time this actually happened...?), it would make sense that if EK were to move to a C41-only ecosystem, they'd also adjust the print film to match.
charlotteRF
Allowing Ads
Remjet has always been annoying to deal with, hopefully this can lead to easier and more consistent and safer home 8mm and 16mm processing of movie film with the standard c41 process.
this means there will be 10's if not 100's of small business who could re-spool and sell these negatives? Hopefully not so expensive...
| 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:  |