new remjet life for soviet developing tank

[removedacct2]

I started playing with Kodak Vision movie film.
I remove the remjet with a solution of soda and wash under vigorous agitation few times, which removes most remjet, but after the last wash (following fixer) there's still some not much but must be removed. So I hang the film and wipe the remains. Then I must load the film again in a spiral for the stabilizer. I use AP or Paterson tanks with AP spirals for color (they load/unload much faster than steel tanks) but I found it risky to try to reload a wet film in these. That's when I recalled my sovjet tanks, that I no longer use because they are for spindle rotations and I much prefer agitation by inversions.
But they are soft plastic with a wide track only on the base, no metallic bearings, the top is flat, film is hold by a simple pinch, and spiraled inside the track very easily and fast. It works very well with wet film.
I took a short video:

 

[AgX]

Why do you have to reload the film onto a reel for stabilizing?
With a high wall tray you can put the film into an open stabilizer bath without scratching it.

 

[removedacct2]

a high wall tray you can put the film into an open stabilizer bath without scratching it.

was thinking this first, but I find the small compact volume of a 35mm tank more practical for pouring the stab to/from the bottle

 

[awty]

You can load wet film on stainless steel spirals.

Im going to see how well my reel to reel tank works for this process.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You can also load wet film on Paterson or AP type reels if you submerge the reel in water. Run a few inches fresh in the plugged sink after finishing up your wash...

 

[removedacct2]

good to know Donald and Paul! will practice all ways, specially with the plastic reels dumped in water, I hadn't though of it at all I guess.

 

[Cholentpot]

I stopped reloading the film for stab. I now just see-saw the film through the stab for a few seconds. As is I don't expect long life for cine film.

 

[AgX]

As is I don't expect long life for cine film.

At least for cine print-film longevity was seemingly not a major issue at manufacturers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At least for cine print-film longevity was seemingly not a major issue at manufacturers.

Agreed. Negatives needed to last long enough to make separations for archiving (if not shot in Technicolor, which was already separated), copy negatives for use in printing machines and such. Copy negatives had to last long enough to make prints through the theatrical run (new ones would be made from the originals if there was a re-release); mechanical durability was important (they had to go through the machine once for each print, though there would generally be multiple copy negatives and multiple machines making the prints to produce the required volume in the time permitted), but archival quality of the copy negatives was not.