New Cinestill 400D film announced

Dirb9 said:

It's Vision 3 250D, with Cinestill's 'adjustment' for processing in C41 instead of ECN2, see also Vision 500T becoming 800T when sold by Cinestill. The 'Kickstarter' format in odd, perhaps a way to gauge interest before placing the order to Kodak.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by adjustment? There isn't a adjustment right they just say process it in C41 which gives a more contrasty and slight colour shifted image. The major different in processes is just that ecn2 was made for ecp2e printing vs RA4.


I hate Cinestills whole remjet removal marketing too. In the early days sure they prob used a remjet removing process like a commercial remjet remover that went at the start of the motion pic film process, but now?

Their film is edge marked as Cinestill - that only happens when Kodak themselves make it for them.

So am I right in thinking now Cinestill are basically Kodak Alaris v2 and have just contracted from Kodak / agreed to use their Vision3 emulsion without a remjet layer added right.

I hate the smoke and mirrors lol call a spade a spade - they contract manufacture from Kodak Vision3 without the remjet layer but with no savings whatsoever.

Labs have progressed far enough these days to handle ecn2 very well including remjet so I don't see the need to pay £16 for their film vs £7.50 for respooled lol

I'm biased because I respool and sell respooled yes - but ignoring that the point stands I think, though keen to hear thoughts lol

Oh and If I need a halo effect Ill just use a pro mist filter

PolyFilmLabs said:

So am I right in thinking now Cinestill are basically Kodak Alaris v2 and have just contracted from Kodak / agreed to use their Vision3 emulsion without a remjet layer added right.

Click to expand...

Cinestill have Eastman Kodak manufacture in bulk large rolls of ECN2 compatible film stock that is essentially the Vision films without the additional remjet, and then Cinestill either has Kodak attend to edge printing and perforating and packaging for them (at a price), or they contract with others to do some or all of those final steps.
Cinestill are distributors and marketers themselves, so they also attend to that very large and expensive portion of the work necessary to bring film to end users.
Eastman Kodak has been willing and able to do contract manufacturing of film for others for years. They have really high minimum volumes, so very few contract with them for that service.
And Eastman Kodak will not make or sell current and unmodified Eastman Kodak still or movie film to others for re-branding.

MattKing said:

Cinestill have Eastman Kodak manufacture in bulk large rolls of ECN2 compatible film stock that is essentially the Vision films without the additional remjet, and then Cinestill either has Kodak attend to edge printing and perforating and packaging for them (at a price), or they contract with others to do some or all of those final steps.
Cinestill are distributors and marketers themselves, so they also attend to that very large and expensive portion of the work necessary to bring film to end users.
Eastman Kodak has been willing and able to do contract manufacturing of film for others for years. They have really high minimum volumes, so very few contract with them for that service.
And Eastman Kodak will not make or sell current and unmodified Eastman Kodak still or movie film to others for re-branding.

Click to expand...

Kodak just makes the rolls. They do no finishing work whatsoever. After it’s coated, it’s packed into a shipping container and sent off to England where Harman cuts, prints edge markings, perforates, and packs it.

Any results yet on the Cinestill 400D? I'm interested in placing an order, but unsure. Some reviews have said that it is too thin, yet others have said that it curls up unacceptably. These two comments sort of seem to be in conflict.

I'm fine with tray development for large format, and this week I ran a roll of the 35mm through a camera and developed it in a tank with very satisfactory results.

runswithsizzers said:

I just finished post processing a roll of CineStill 400 D. I metered the first half of the roll at EI 250 and the second half at 400; it did not seem to make a lot of difference. After C-41 processing by Citizens Photo, I used a camera to scan the negatives, and then converted them to positive using Negative Lab Pro. The colors were brighter than I was expecting, and I was not always able to get colors I like, but maybe that's just me.

More results are posted <here>

Click to expand...

I really like the colours that you got. I liked the results on the film I developed this week also. I very much like my colours reined in.

I've used 400D in 4x5 and 120.
It works well for the type of photography I do.
I send it to a lab for processing, with notification that it is a thin base film, and has no rem-jet.

AnselMortensen said:

I've used 400D in 4x5 and 120.
It works well for the type of photography I do.
I send it to a lab for processing, with notification that it is a thin base film, and has no rem-jet.

Click to expand...

I'll be developing as well. Did you find any handling problems with the 4x5? I've read some comments that it can "pop" in the film-holder, and even come out of it. My main concern is the possible lack of focus if it bellies in the holder during a shot. That could lead to scraping, or possibly even to crushing the sheet when replacing the dark slide, so these are my first worries about the stock.

My nearest lab doesn't handle 4x5, but I'm comfortable developing it anyway.

ETA: I've developed the 35mm 400mm as well as the 800T using standard process. I didn't need to change as a result of the removed rem layer. Am I missing something here?

I haven't had a problem with the 4x5 popping out of holders.
I let the lab know that it's a thin base film without rem-jet as a courtesy, so they know what to expect.
The lab I use has dip & dunk equipment.

I've done a few tests with Aerocolor in 4x5", which is on a similarly thin base. I noticed no problems although it does feel quite flimsy during handling. I was kind of surprised that the sheets stayed in the Jobo 2560N reel just fine during processing, without touching or dislodging.

NiallerM said:

I didn't need to change as a result of the removed rem layer. Am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

What did you expect to have to change? It's the same film, and it's still ECN2 process. If you run a remjet-less film through the process, any remjet removal bath will just make no difference, and it'll do no harm either. There's no adjustment in development time or exposure needed, either. The only difference is the degree of halation you'll get.

koraks said:

I've done a few tests with Aerocolor in 4x5", which is on a similarly thin base. I noticed no problems although it does feel quite flimsy during handling. I was kind of surprised that the sheets stayed in the Jobo 2560N reel just fine during processing, without touching or dislodging.



What did you expect to have to change? It's the same film, and it's still ECN2 process. If you run a remjet-less film through the process, any remjet removal bath will just make no difference, and it'll do no harm either. There's no adjustment in development time or exposure needed, either. The only difference is the degree of halation you'll get.

Click to expand...

I didn't expect anything to change. I was just thrown by the message of an instruction to the lab. As I mentioned, the devlopment I ran involved no change in the process. It was an absolutely standard process.

I think I'll go ahead with an order. Unless it is completely unusable it won't go to waste. I'm looking forward to playing with it.

MCB18 said:

Kodak just makes the rolls. They do no finishing work whatsoever. After it’s coated, it’s packed into a shipping container and sent off to England where Harman cuts, prints edge markings, perforates, and packs it.

Click to expand...

That is only partly correct: CineStill has in total more partners for film confectioning. For example I had used 120 film from them which were confectioned by Foma, and a 135 800T I used had an Adox style converting.

Well, I tried it this weekend. Just one sheet. It worked fine and developed without any problem. My main worry was with handling it, but I found that not to be a problem. In fact, while the thin base was noticeable, it was easily loaded, and maintained its form right through to drying, at which stage it showed a strong desire to roll in on itself. I handled that easily enough, and after it was dried I kept it between two sheets of glass overnight. I'm really pleased to have a colour option for occasional work. More than anything, though, I was happy to find that it handled fine. Attention with it is needed, though.

As for IQ, I am during major refitting and most of my equipment is boxed, so very rough scans are all I can do. The colours definitely need a bit of tweaking, but that is fine