Motion picture film for stills (p30 & cinestill)

[ericdan]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m trying to understand what people are doing when they try to get that “movie” look in their still pictures with p30 and cinestill.

These film stocks used to be developed as negatives (not C-41) and then printed onto print film for presentation.
Unless you do that, especially for color films, you’ll never get that Hollywood look.

 

[howardpan]

Aren’t both of these films black and white film? I develop Kodak Double-X (I believe the Cinestill is just a rebadging of Double-X) and Orwo’s movie film in D76 (or the likes) and print them in a darkroom.

 

[ericdan]

Cinestill is the same as double X I think. But they remove the remjet layer. Hence you get halos in your images around bright light sources.

 

[Pentode]

I shoot Orwo’s movie film stock for stills not because I’m seeking any sort of “movie look” but simply because it’s very nice looking b&w film.

I have a stockpile of Eastman 5222 and 5231 (Double X and Plus X) that I plan to shoot the same way and for the same reasons.

I was unaware that people used movie stock with the goal of mimicking a cinematic look, but then there’s an awful lot I’m unaware of....

 

[faberryman]

I shoot Orwo’s movie film stock for stills not because I’m seeking any sort of “movie look” but simply because it’s very nice looking b&w film.

I have a stockpile of Eastman 5222 and 5231 (Double X and Plus X) that I plan to shoot the same way and for the same reasons.

I was unaware that people used movie stock with the goal of mimicking a cinematic look, but then there’s an awful lot I’m unaware of....

I suspect some people think that if they use movie stock they will automatically get a cinematic look, however that may be defined (vaguely, I suspect)..

 

[Kino]

If you want a cinematic look, grab some 5302/2302 fine grain positive release stock and makes some contact slides. Just process the release print stock in Dektol if you are impatient, or if you're ambitious, blast it with light and mix up some D97.

5302 has no real ASA rating, as it is a lab stock, but you can give it roughly an ASA of 2 to 5 if you want an idea of sensitivity...

 

[howardpan]

Cinestill is the same as double X I think. But they remove the remjet layer. Hence you get halos in your images around bright light sources.

Eric, there is no remjet layer on either the Double-X or the ORWO black and white motion picture film. As I far as I know, only the color film have remjet. I have shot and developed these film (black and white and color) myself.

 

[CMoore]

Remjet.?
Couldn't they just leave that stuff on, and let the developer take care of the removal.?
How do you remove That stuff from unexposed film, and not ruin the film.?
Thank You

 

[howardpan]

Remjet.?
Couldn't they just leave that stuff on, and let the developer take care of the removal.?
How do you remove That stuff from unexposed film, and not ruin the film.?
Thank You

There is no remjet layer on black and white motion picture film.

For the color motion picture film, I use a process similar to what is listed here: http://www.lomography.tw/homes/lzyrich/notes/139417-removal-of-rem-jet-backing-from-cine-film

As I understand it, the purpose is to prevent contamination of the C41 developer. In my experience, there is some remjet leftover that is removed during the wash phase.

 

[Kino]

This has been discussed here before:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ve-rem-jet-backing-and-b-w-film-doesnt.76520/

 

[CMoore]

Hhmmmmm. Sorry if you guys said, and i am looking right at it.....maybe i am wrong about Cine Still.?
Do they remove the "Remjet" before the film is bought by the photographer.?
How do they remove that stuff without ruining the film, or making it cost a fortune.?

 

[ericdan]

Hhmmmmm. Sorry if you guys said, and i am looking right at it.....maybe i am wrong about Cine Still.?
Do they remove the "Remjet" before the film is bought by the photographer.?
How do they remove that stuff without ruining the film, or making it cost a fortune.?

yes, they remove it from their color films and then re-spool into 35mm canisters. No adverse effects as far as I know. Other than of course that the film is not intended for C41 chemistry. So you scan or print the film onto RA4 paper and you get shifted colors.
Some people are into unpredictable results. Expired or cross processed films etc. I just think it makes no sense to claim you'll get the motion picture look by shooting motion picture film unless you also process it that way.

 

[CMoore]

Ahhh.....OK...I see.
Thank You
I know very little about color film (obviously)....and Nothing about Cinema Film.
On Friday, a guy was Just Telling me that his Cine-Still, Color, 800 ASA, is Tungsten Balanced. Said he sends it to Dwayne's Photo and it looks great.
I have no idea how Dwayne's deals with it, or if they print it at all, or just send scans.

This is the little story that goes along with that guy ^^^^^^^^^.............I was JUST at a birthday party. They had a Professional Photographer, and Plenty of people with "smart" cell phones, to take pictures.....Perfect...!!
This was at a rented "hall", so the place was kind of big, with more light than your typical restaurant, but it was still inside. My wife wanted me to shoot color film at that party. Not my thing to begin with.
Plus i told her that i only have Kodacolor 200. I would have to use a flash for everything...also not my best skill. In my wife's defense, she thinks.....or maybe wishes ..... i am A LOT Better Photographer than i really am.
We get to the party, get our table assignment (#14) and the first thing we see at our table, are a guy and his wife, and he has a Pentax K1000.!
Much to my wife's enjoyment, he is walking around with no flash, taking pictures in the restaurant.
I asked him what speed his film was, and he said 800...Cine-Still, Color, Tungsten Balanced.

 

[ericdan]

the film is tungsten balanced, assuming that you put it through its intended process. Not C41.
In C41 it'll be color shifted, forget about any color balance.
I shot one roll, tried to print it in the darkroom. It's basically impossible. Never ever again.
They sell Gold, Porta, Ektar in stores. Why would I pick an inferior product when I have those films?

 

[CMoore]

the film is tungsten balanced, assuming that you put it through its intended process. Not C41.
In C41 it'll be color shifted, forget about any color balance.
I shot one roll, tried to print it in the darkroom. It's basically impossible. Never ever again.
They sell Gold, Porta, Ektar in stores. Why would I pick an inferior product when I have those films?

What little i HAVE Read about Cine-Still, all seems to jibe with your opinion.

 

[MattKing]

Cinestill starts out as camera film for movies - Kodak VISION3 500T Film - this stuff: https://www.kodak.com/CA/en/motion/Products/Production/5219/default.htm.
That emulsion is tungsten balanced, because a lot of movies are/were shot using tungsten based light sources, and because it is easier to use filtration to adjust tungsten film to work with daylight than it is to adjust daylight film to work with tungsten light.
When properly developed in ECN chemicals, it yields a relatively low contrast negative that is well suited to either printing on to movie projection film KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383, or scanning using the high quality, high capacity motion picture scanning systems designed for the creation of digital intermediates.
The colour movie stocks use remjet because remjet provides the highest amount of protection against halation, and because it also assists the film in slipping easily through the cameras at high speed - it is slippery!
Kodachrome had remjet, because a large percentage of Kodachrome was shot as movie film.

 

[ericdan]

I bet KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383 is pretty high contrast then to make up for the low contrast on the negative.

 

[Cholentpot]

I went for the full experience.

I shot motion picture film - a roll of HP5+ from a 400 foot cine roll - through a CinemaScope lens. There's no REMJET on B&W cine film as far as I can tell.

I've shot many roll of ECN-2 developed in C-41. With and without an 85 filter. I'd say with the advent of digital scanning the tungsten balance is no problem.

https://imgur.com/a/QsguB

 

[Ted Baker]

I bet KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383 is pretty high contrast then to make up for the low contrast on the negative.

yep and specifically designed for projection.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

First there is no remjet coating on B&W cine film only for color film;
Second there is no difference between the emulsion for cine film and still film ; The difference is in the base, such as heavier stock, etc,,
Third the red sensitivity is not much different than for still film, If you look at the D = 64 and T = 80 values for Eastman 5222 they are not much different. Such values are not given for still films as they would be within the latitude of the film,

 

[ericdan]

OK, there's no remjet on B&W motion picture film. Point taken.

 

[ericdan]

First there is no remjet coating on B&W cine film only for color film;
Second there is no difference between the emulsion for cine film and still film ; The difference is in the base, such as heavier stock, etc,,
Third the red sensitivity is not much different than for still film, If you look at the D = 64 and T = 80 values for Eastman 5222 they are not much different. Such values are not given for still films as they would be within the latitude of the film,

There is enough difference to make films designed for ECN look terrible in C41.

 

[Cholentpot]

There is enough difference to make films designed for ECN look terrible in C41.

Beg your pardon.

Vision3 500T @ 800, K mount off brand camera and Sears 135 2.8. Granted the stuff is grainy but I dunno, looks pretty good to me.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Lots of urban legends here, based on lack of effort to do google search. I'm lazy to google "p30", for example
To sum up on cinefilm:
Here is BW motion picture film - no remjet, regular BW developing process to apply.
Here is ECN2 color motion picture film. T is for tungsten light, D is for day light. D gives more natural colors.
Both are OK to develop in C-41 and correct it in digital PP, but D will gives less odd colors.
Some hipsta stores are offering color motion picture ECN2 film as cinefilm on premium price, due to profit, remjet pre-removal and packaging. It is suitable for what hipsta do - buy expensive, but crappy film and develop it in the lab. This film with remjet removed is not pooping into labs chemicals.

This is how old Kodak 50D (2004) came out from C-41 in 2015 on scans:
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/78654/ppuser/9655/cat/500

Fuji 250D not so very much expired film in ECN2 scan:

 

[ericdan]

You can get similar results by processing E6 film in C41 chemistry. If that’s the look you’re into.