Weird video -- I'm not familiar with this film, and the video doesn't really tell me what the point is, although I assume there is one. This is what happens when you tend to stick to tri-x in ur old age, eh?
Dumb question, how does non-remjet film deal with halation?The film is Kodak 800t cine film with the remjet backing removed and packaged in 35mm and 120. 800t and its cousins have phenomenal exposure latitude - significantly more than Portra. The one caveat is that the remjet also functioned as the anti-halation backing to shots into point light sources can be a little funny.
The film is Kodak 800t cine film with the remjet backing removed and packaged in 35mm and 120. 800t and its cousins have phenomenal exposure latitude - significantly more than Portra. The one caveat is that the remjet also functioned as the anti-halation backing to shots into point light sources can be a little funny.
Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk....Go see the Hateful 8.
[Kodak] do manufacture 5219 which is a 500 speed emulsion and Cinestill claims an asa of 800 because of the remjet removal process.
Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk.
Likely not because of remjet-removal but cross-processing.
Well "cross processing" usually refer to reversal processing negative film, like processing C41 in E6, or negative processing reversal film, like processing E6 film in C41. This is neither. Since this will most often be processed in C41 which is also a negative process, but not the one for which the film was intended, this is more like "wrong processing."
Still, there's a discussion going on here now about someone putting together ECN2 kits for home use, and I said the lack of 120 film meant I probably wouldn't bother. I might at that if this goes. I also just bought - well last year but haven't done anything with them yet - some studio tungsten lights. Hmmmm.
...Go see the Hateful 8.
Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk.
I've only seen a few of them, but, apparently, they're all pretty much the same. I haven't liked any of them. Here's what I posted about the Hateful Eight last December 25:Do you like any of his movies?...
Not relevant. Tarantino's crap is what was recommended; I responded to offer a different perspective on that....What are some of the latest movies you have liked?
Yeah, if Cinestill would front the money for a big roll of 65mm film, slice it down to width, and package it with spools and backing paper... but NOT remove the Remjet... I'd be highly interested! Then it could be "right processed" and not have the halation.
Duncan
Even dumber question doesn't the remjet come off when it's processed? They don't remove the remjet from unexposed film do they? I always thought that the remjet was there so you could load reels of movie film in the light. Isn't this the same thing that's been going on since the 70's, it used to be super cheap and when you sent a roll to be processed they would send you back a new roll for free since they were setup to remove the remjet.The film is Kodak 800t cine film with the remjet backing removed and packaged in 35mm and 120. 800t and its cousins have phenomenal exposure latitude - significantly more than Portra. The one caveat is that the remjet also functioned as the anti-halation backing to shots into point light sources can be a little funny.
Even dumber question doesn't the remjet come off when it's processed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?