New fast (800) Tungsten balanced film called Cinestill

[ajuk]

Well with the pushable to 1600 (or maybe faster) Provia 400x discontinued and pushable tungsten balanced film gone for a while and 800 speed C41 being to slow and to grainy to use with a blue filter it would seem that my prayers have been answered. Dead Link Removed It looks good, I have been told I will be getting some free rolls to test for my web page, I just hope it's as good as it looks.





I'm guessing this has been taken with a warm up filter.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It has been available for some time. It is a Kodak cine film with remjet removed.
In Germany, Fotoimpex stocks it. See here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[AgX]

...and 800 speed C41 being too slow and to grainy to use with a blue filter...

That modified film is rated by Kodak as EI 320 with tungsten lighting. A ISO 800 C-41 daylight film would yield EI 200 at Tungsten lighting.

Is that such a difference to call it too slow?

 

[ajuk]

Yeah, 200 is a bit slow under dim tungsten lighting. The reason why I don't use ISO 800 colour film is because I don't want it to be daylight balanced in the first place at that speed.

 

[David Grenet]

That modified film is rated by Kodak as EI 320 with tungsten lighting. A ISO 800 C-41 daylight film would yield EI 200 at Tungsten lighting.

It's Vision 500T which is rated at ISO 500 in tungsten and 320 in daylight. As it's designed to be processed in ECN-2 chemistry, I don't know enough to presume what the best EI would be for processing in C-41...

 

[clayne]

Yep obviously Vision3 500T - probably THE pinnacle of color negative. Avoid the middle man and do it yourself. Remjet is easy.

 

[ajuk]

Why don't Kodak sell this like this themselves?

 

[AgX]

Just leaving out the rem-jet layer may not work, as it may serve as antihalation layer too.

(Sorry for the confusion above... I mixed up thhings.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

If it is indeed a cine film, and if it is processed in C41, then it will not yield satisfactory results. Only the ECN process is suitable. In addition, the dyes will not be completely stable.

You will have to judge for yourselves with a critical eye if done in C41. If done in the ECN process, the results will likely be quite good if not excellent.

If the remjet has been pre-removed, then results will be poor to ghastly due to halation. If you do it yourself, it is messy and leaves some rem-jet. If the lab does it, well then it depends.

PE

 

[David Grenet]

They're quite upfront about it being 500T (5219) in their Dead Link Removed.

PE, wouldn't the archival stability be roughly the same as cross processed E6 film as, if I recall correctly, it and ECN-2 both use CD3. Or is it more complicated than that?

The remjet is pre-removed but the sample pictures don't look too bad (or obviously affected by halation). They do recommend avoiding scenes that are backlit or include strong point light sources.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If this film appeals to you then check to see whether short ends are available. This would be the economical way of getting it. It is not difficult to process ECN films.

The rem-jet coating has been removed so as not to piss-off commercial processors. The rem-jet coating really screws up their systems which are not equipped to deal with it..

 

[ajuk]

Well they must have done something right because it looks good to me, but I will post my results when I get them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think the precaution about backlit scenes is a strong indication to me that there will be halation in some conditions.

Any CD3 film processed in a CD4 developer or vice versa, runs the risk of degraded color and image stability. It is the nature of the game. I've done both, but I know what I am up against and I take my chances. It is the nature of the game called chemistry. It is not going to ruin things utterly, but you may not get the entire result you deserve.

It is an admirable effort and deserves credit. It also deserves a try..

PE

 

[Truzi]

I find it interesting, though if I go this route I'll probably try to find some Vision3 and proper developer and do it myself. However, my skill-level has to increase before I attempt it.

For me, the color shifts would not be as important as longevity. I'd expect color "issues" from cross-processing, but would want the images, however they turned out, to last. That is probably why I've not yet tried cross-processing, as fun as it sounds to me. I have some terrible, grainy, ill-lit, half-blurred photos I took in my childhood when I was first learning to use a camera. They have lasted, so I still have those memories.

 

[Rudeofus]

I find it interesting, though if I go this route I'll probably try to find some Vision3 and proper developer and do it myself. However, my skill-level has to increase before I attempt it.

Unlike C41 and E6, the recipes and detailed processing instrcutions for ECN-2 have been published by Kodak. There is an interesting discussion (there was a url link here which no longer exists), too.

 

[madgardener]

I'm siding with PE on this one, I remember what happened with Seattle FilmWorks and their attempt at cinema film. I'll pass on spending $10 on 2 rolls of this particular film.

 

[ctsundevil]

I have plenty of Seattle Filmworks negatives from 25 years ago. I wish I had used regular still film for these photos. They are difficult to print - low contrast and strange color balance. They look OK on ultra endura, but not as good as anything I shot on Vericolor, or Gold or Agfacolor. If there was a paper made for this film, then it might be worth it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'm siding with PE on this one, I remember what happened with Seattle FilmWorks and their attempt at cinema film. I'll pass on spending $10 on 2 rolls of this particular film.

When Seattle Film works was doing this they were using the correct process for the film. The problem was with the nature of the film at that time. It was intended to be printed on color positive film and not color paper. The separate curves did not match and prints always had a color cast. Since then Kodak has changed things so the problem no longer occurs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Jerry;

Sorry, but that problem still exists. Kodak professional negative films (Portra and etc) processed in C41, are intended to have a contrast of about 0.6 and Endura paper is built to a cntrast of 2.5 thus giving a print of about 1.5, but ECN is built to have a contrast of about 0.5 and so printed on Endura it gives a flat print with a contrast of 1.25.

This is assuming that the films are processed in their correct processes. IDK what the cross process will do to contrast, but I do know that the ECN dyes will become more polar in the C41 process and thus will be broader in hue and will be oriented in the oil drops in a different fashion. Maybe you have some thoughts on this, but generally the orientation and the glass transition temperature control some aspects of image stability.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

This is assuming that the films are processed in their correct processes. IDK what the cross process will do to contrast, but I do know that the ECN dyes will become more polar in the C41 process and thus will be broader in hue and will be oriented in the oil drops in a different fashion.

Given that 500T is marketed as ISO 800 C41 film I would assume that regular C41 yields much higher contrast than correct ECN-2 processing. But that's just a guess ...

 

[Photo Engineer]

An increase in contrast from 0.5 to 0.6 would do the trick gaining about 0.15 log E (1/2 stop) in the mid scale. If this were to be done with all 3 curves changing by the same amount, then it would make fine prints on Endura with some color errors due to the change in the spectral curves of the dyes. As noted above, you would have to be careful about halation, and thinking about it, also about static. The rem-jet is also the antistat layer in ECN.

PE

 

[Truzi]

Unlike C41 and E6, the recipes and detailed processing instrcutions for ECN-2 have been published by Kodak. There is an interesting discussion (there was a url link here which no longer exists), too.

I've not yet attempted C-41 processing, but have collected just about everything I need to do it. I think I need to do color consistently a bit before trying the ECN-2. It is definitely something on my wish-list, though.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The C41 developer is disclosed in several patents.

PE

 

[clayne]

ECN-2 is also fairly well documented and available.

 

[Rudeofus]

Unlike ECN-2, C41 dev kits are readily available for all these who don't want to home brew. This fact may be the main reason why Cinestill film is marketed as C-41 film despite the flaws and risks (as pointed out by PE) that such an incorrect development procedure will bring.