• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New fast (800) Tungsten balanced film called Cinestill

Photo Engineer said:
AFAIK, no print film ever had a rem jet backing.
Thanks for the clarification Charles.
PE
Click to expand...

I just checked the Old Fuji film site and there last print films DID NOT have the rem jet and the datasheets refer to ECP-2B see for example http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/products/motion-picture-film/p/eterna-cp-type3512/ although if you look at the PDF that is linked there "The Process steps of prebath and rem-jet removal may be omitted"

the other "strange" Print film "2332 Asset Protection Film" calls for ECP-2D and also apperently does not have the REM-JET.

So I don't know when it was dropped on the print films. The Data sheet for ECP-2D does have the note that

"Film 2395 / 3395 is coated on a new ESTAR Base
featuring proprietary Kodak technology that replaces rem-jet
with process-surviving, anti-static layer, and scratch-
resistant backing layer. This film has an efficient
antihalation layer under the emulsion layers, using patented
solid particle dyes that are decolorized and removed during
processing.
"

But I don't know how many generations that is back... The data sheet is at http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/h2409a(1).pdf
 
Charles;

Your reference of films without rem-jet, which shows the structure, is for print films. AFAIK, ECN, the camera fulm, is still made with rem-jet. And of course, with these the rem-jet removal stage can be omitted.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Your reference of films without rem-jet, which shows the structure, is for print films. AFAIK, ECN, the camera film, is still made with rem-jet.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

Years ago I played with the Camera Negative at home and the rem-jet gets on everything.

The only point I was trying to add to this discussion is that just taking the Camera film and buffing off the rem-jet will leave you with a film with no antihalo. I brought up the print films as where they did stop using remjet they had to come up with a new system UNDER the emulsion layer to substitute.


I appreciate that these guys have done a lot of work to come up with a way to safely use the Vision stock for those who don't have access to a friendly Movie lab. (the big movie processors typically run at 100 FPM or so and so it is a bit tricky to splice in a 5 foot section of film to help out a still Photographer) BUT I don't think the results will be as good without the rem-jet at time of exposure. I am guessing they figure that the C-41 run will give them a bit of a push to up the contrast and at the same time justify their 800 rating to a 500 film that many Movie pros like to rate at 320.

I get the terible feeling taht this sounds like I am arguing, and I really am not.
 
I recently shot ECN-2 500T and x-processed in C-41 and the colors were dull and had accuracy issues. This was not film sold by this company it was 500T with the rem jet backing which I removed myself.

I'm going to try ECN-2 in ECN developer the next time.
 
Stone, I have said it over and over. The contrast of ECN films is very low and cross processing it makes it even more so. You can scan it and fiddle with it until it looks good, but that is about it.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Stone, I have said it over and over. The contrast of ECN films is very low and cross processing it makes it even more so. You can scan it and fiddle with it until it looks good, but that is about it.

PE
Click to expand...

Right which makes the examples in the OP either false advertising or the film isn't 500T.
 
Or, he changed development conditions to adjust for contrast, or he adjusted the scanning parameters. Note that ECN is not processed at the same temperature as C41 just as one example.

I have seen outstanding ECN results. But, generally not in C41 without manipulation.

PE
 
Stone,
Cinestill is Kodak 500T

Trust me on this one my friend, just trust me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StoneNYC said:
I'm sure. Just saying if they are saying C-41 will give the OP's images results, they will have many unhappy customers.
Click to expand...

Gave me perfectly usable results when I shot a few rolls they gave me(we're friends)
albeit I used an 81B filter under daylight conditions.
scanning is where most people can't get it right. That's the bottleneck IMO.

As with anything photographic, YOU(the photographer) have to take care when making your exposures, the film won't do ALL the work for ya !
 

Don't you need an 85B for T film?
 
StoneNYC said:
Don't you need an 85B for T film?
Click to expand...

An 81B is the warmest warming filter I have in my Lee 4x4 kit, so I used what I had available

I tend to not get overly technical on stuff like this... It was just "try it out, see if you like it" kinda rolls... So I took them up on their offer
 
StoneNYC said:
Don't you need an 85B for T film?
Click to expand...

actually a plain 85. but an 85a or 85B will be close, and if you are using C-41 the colour balance will need futzing anyway. Some movie folks omit the filter and "Fix it in Post" but that runs the risk of overexposing the Cyan layer. Since the Cinestill folks are already recommending some underexposure by rating it at 800, that may be not as much as a problem, or in fact it may be where they get the 800 recommendation.
 
Overexposing the cyan layer? Without a filter, the blue layer in T film is very fast in daylight.

PE
 
Not sure what Ei these were shot at, I had the camera set to 800 and I was regally setting it to -1 just to be able to get a fast enough shutter speed at f1.8.

 

Attachments

  • 12457100254_f6372e4fcc_b.jpg
    257.6 KB · Views: 256
I have a roll here at the house that I'm super excited to try out with some night photography.

Question, what is the 'normal' EI for standard C-41 processing, and when do I push process? I'm used to EI 250 using Tri-X at night, so anything above that will be a luxury.
Anybody have reciprocity figures for it?
 
Stone,

Try the ECN-2 developer found here under "ECN-2 for pictorial use" at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) It's not bad.

You can also mix up the developer in the Kodak app notes.

As PE notes, it is a lower contrast film. But, that gives us a lower contrast film option is how I look at it. It scans wonderfully, although it tends towards the green in color balance. Of course you can tune that out.

I have not used the "T" variety yet myself, although I have some. But I imagine it will act much like the daylight balance.

-- Jason
 

Thanks for the link, I bought all the chems 6 months ago and then couldn't get CD-3 till recently, by then I had lost the list of amounts! Lol
 
The best way to "know" isn't by reading it online. It's by trying and seeing it for yourself. There is a lot of well founded hypotheticals on here, but no one ever created anything with a hypothetical. Go test, experiment, retest, modify, adjust, and create! CineStill is called 800T not because it is "low contrast" or even lower in C41, but because testing has proven that the gamma is increased in C41. It's not unlike B&W developers controlling contrast. CD3 is a low contrast (gamma) developer. Now go out and create! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register