New CineStill 120 Medium Format Film Indiegogo Project

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

new CineStill Indiegogo project:
Dead Link Removed

Best regards,
Henning

 

[MattKrull]

Cool! Thank you for the heads up. Early bird specials are still available. Unfortunately shipping to Canada is nuts. $26 shipping for a $12 roll of film? Ouch. After shipping and currency conversion, the early bird roll + t-shirt is $90Cnd, shame.

 

[summicron1]

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?

 

[cramej]

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?

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.

 

[skorpiius]

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.

Dumb question, how does non-remjet film deal with halation?

 

[Arctic amateur]

It doesn't.

 

[redstarjedi]

it does a poor job. So most of the quality cinema-in-still-camera photos are where there is no strong lighting. Either indirect, non-reflective, and subdued lighting. However, it does have AMAZING shadow detail, overall detail, dynamic range, and exposure latitude. Really i wish cine labs would accept film from still camera users. I had a friend who did that for me that once worked at a cine lab. Alas i can't do that anymore.

 

[wildbill]

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.

Not completely true. Kodak hasn't manufactured an 800 asa cine film in quite some time.
They do manufacture 5219 which is a 500 speed emulsion and cinestill claims an asa of 800 because of the remjet removal process. In 65mm, it's available in 1000' and 2000' rolls.
Go see the Hateful 8.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Go see the Hateful 8.

Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk.

 

[AgX]

[Kodak] do manufacture 5219 which is a 500 speed emulsion and Cinestill claims an asa of 800 because of the remjet removal process.

Likely not because of remjet-removal but cross-processing.

 

[Element 6]

I pledged $10. I don't even have medium format but would like to see new products in the film industry.

 

[wildbill]

Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk.

Do you like any of his movies?
What are some of the latest movies you have liked?

 

[MattKing]

If you remove the remjet, the emulsion receives exposure from both the front and back (reflected light causing halation).

So you need to reduce the exposure - thus the suggestion it be re-rated.

I'm not sure that "ISO" is the right term though - EI seems more appropriate when you need to take into account the reflected light. I stand to be corrected though.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

 

[AgX]

Processing a colour negative film in another developer than standard to me is "cross-processing".
But even when leaving aside terminology: These films are designed for a certain processing, much more than classic b&w films are.

By processing in another type of developer one likely disturbs the coupler/dev.-agent match.

 

[frobozz]

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.

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

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Go see the Hateful 8.

Don't, even if you're curious about the technical aspects. I wasted my time/money on it. Junk.

Do you like any of his movies?...

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:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)​

It summarizes both the technical experience and my reaction to the film's content.

...What are some of the latest movies you have liked?

Not relevant. Tarantino's crap is what was recommended; I responded to offer a different perspective on that.

 

[sfaber17]

So I take it that those examples on the site are done with C-41 and scanned? I wonder if you can print them optically or do you need to do a lot of compensation that would only work on a scan?

 

[Roger Cole]

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

Right processed where by whom?

I could live with the halation, much of the time anyway, but would much prefer if I could process or get it processed in ECN2. For this I would much prefer to have someone else do it because the very occasional roll I would shoot would nowhere near justify stocking up on single purpose chems. Heck I don't feel justified in bothering with my own C41 now even though I have a Jobo and have done plenty of C41 in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I liked this character:

but I had trouble figuring out color or black & white, ISO, ....

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Does anyone know if the medium format Cinestill is available, yet? Are they sill working in the large format stuff? I liked the little bit of 50D I shot in 35mm.

 

[mshchem]

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? 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.
They also mentioned large format. This could be a way for EK not EK Alaris to sell still film?
Confused as usual, interesting and nice to see. Best Regards Mike

 

[AgX]

-) CineStill remove the REM-jet layer prior to selling the film

-) REM-jet is a means against halation and static charge. There are more modern means by now.

-) open reels of cine film are loaded in the dark into a magazine, which then is attached in light to the camera and the film guided through the gate

 

[cmacd123]

Even dumber question doesn't the remjet come off when it's processed?

---It does when the film is processed in long rolls in a movie processor, completly different process than still film, and requires the film to be spliced together with other rolls to thread the processor

 

[cmacd123]

[QUOTE="mshchem, post: 1833502, member: 23192" ]
They don't remove the remjet from unexposed film do they?
[/QUOTE]

---Cine Still does. no one else does.