What is happening to Cinestill?

[Helge]

kodak will happily sell you Vision 3 500T. they will not let you repack and sell it as "eastman" "Kodak" "Vison" "5219" or any variation. They will tolerate CineStyle, mo-pic CineColor 500T and a host of others. they seem to be tolerating many folks who advertise that their product is "Made from" the actually Kodak product as long as the dealer is clear that the Various Kodak Trademarks ARE indeed Kodak Trademarks.

Eastman Kodak list a 400ft 35mm roll of 5219, 500T in their catalogue. just write ei-order@kodak.com and tell them how many rolls you would like. https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3-5219-7219-sell-sheet-EN.pdf


even with the REM-JET removed, the ECN2 films are really not a subsitute for regular C-41 films. with the RemJet removed before exposure, they are a find demonstarion of why film needs an auto-halo strategy.

Removal of remjet speeds up the film. So it’s not all bad.

Artisanal labs should consider selling straight Vision3 and develop ECN-2.

 

[koraks]

Removal of remjet speeds up the film.

I remain skeptical of this claim.
AFAIK the 'speed gain' is because they market the film for processing in C41, which is a more active developer than ECN2, so the gamma will be higher than what the film is designed to give. Some interpret this as a 'speed boost'. I believe that's technically incorrect. YMMV.

 

[Cholentpot]

You've had 8 today all ready.

Now I've got to stand in the tea chest.

 

[analogwisdom]

Of course Reddit is being a little ridiculous and getting the hivemind going, as Reddit tends to do, but Cinestill is doing an awful job at handling all of this as well.

I am not a lawyer, but Cinestill's trademark policy page has a section under the "800T" which claims that the market doesn't refer to films with the "ISO + T" designation. I guess that's been true since they came out for consumer products, but there have been several types of film with that kind of moniker... Fuji 64T, Ektachrome 160/320T, Portra 100T, just to name a couple. Seems like a weird claim to make that ISO + T for tungsten should be protected, they just come off on this web page as they came up with that kind of designation all on their own.

 

[Oldwino]

On one thread I read, someone referenced an IBM lawsuit, brought by IBM against other chip manufacturers using the numbers 386 and 486 to describe their chips. IBM lost, as it was determined that you cannot trademark a number (basically).
Likewise, as mentioned above, it was common practice to label films with a speed number and a color balance designation in the very recent past.
I don’t think Cinestill has much of a leg to stand on if someone took them to court over this.
But they are just hassling small businesses with cease and desist letters, businesses they know that don’t have the means to fight back. B&H sells this Chinese packaged film, too. Did Cinestill send them such a letter?

 

[Helge]

I remain skeptical of this claim.
AFAIK the 'speed gain' is because they market the film for processing in C41, which is a more active developer than ECN2, so the gamma will be higher than what the film is designed to give. Some interpret this as a 'speed boost'. I believe that's technically incorrect. YMMV.

The back reflectance works partly as a tapetum lucidum and partly as light flashing of the lower zones.
Possibly the reason why HIE lacked AH, and why it’s common to wash AH off to gain about a stop.
Of course it lowers contrast.
But that is less of a problem if you push the film.

 

[koraks]

The back reflectance works partly as a tapetum lucidum and partly as light flashing of the lower zones.

Yeah, I know that part of the argument as well. My skepticism remains, both on theoretical and empirical grounds. But it's off-topic here.

 

[Helge]

Yeah, I know that part of the argument as well. My skepticism remains, both on theoretical and empirical grounds. But it's off-topic here.

You might be right. Slim topic to start a thread on though.

 

[cmacd123]

Seems petty, and in the end it's the consumers who suffer.

and in the wide world, I suspect that "800T' wouldnot meet the threshold for trademark staus in many places, being merly "Descriptive" - but I am NOT a Lawyer, and the courts - particularly in the US seem to be quite happy to extend trademark and copyright laws in many interesting new ways.

 

[cmacd123]

I remain skeptical of this claim.
AFAIK the 'speed gain' is because they market the film for processing in C41, which is a more active developer than ECN2, so the gamma will be higher than what the film is designed to give. Some interpret this as a 'speed boost'. I believe that's technically incorrect. YMMV.

I agree, or perhaps the red light reflecting off the film base without the REM-JET, creating Halos around objects adds density

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If they're British they would completely understand if you walked in and said 'Here, stop this now. it's quite silly.'

They might understand the reference, but still wouldn't consider relevant aspects of law silly.

 

[Cholentpot]

They might understand the reference, but still wouldn't consider relevant aspects of law silly.

But it's my only line!

 

[mshchem]

Don't most black and white films list daylight and tungsten speeds? Seems kinda crazy to forbid the description of a color film that is balanced for tungsten. Of course someone needs to tm 3200 and 3400. Tungsten lamps are going to be as rare as kerosene lanterns.

Maybe 800 Softwhite

 

[Molli]

On one thread I read, someone referenced an IBM lawsuit, brought by IBM against other chip manufacturers using the numbers 386 and 486 to describe their chips. IBM lost, as it was determined that you cannot trademark a number (basically).
Likewise, as mentioned above, it was common practice to label films with a speed number and a color balance designation in the very recent past.
I don’t think Cinestill has much of a leg to stand on if someone took them to court over this.
But they are just hassling small businesses with cease and desist letters, businesses they know that don’t have the means to fight back. B&H sells this Chinese packaged film, too. Did Cinestill send them such a letter?

I do hope they go after Kodak who made and sold an actual 800T film (5289). Worse still, Kodak had the temerity to emblazon their tins with that designation descriptor trademark. What a nerve, huh?

Ultrafine Photo Warehouse is also selling actual Kodak 800T under the Motipix label. I wonder if they've received their cease and desist letter yet?

Motipix Vintage Kodak 800T 35 mm x 36 Exp 5289 Color Print Film ECN-2 Process - Ultrafine MotiPix Motion Picture Eastman Kodak Film Stocks for Still Cameras (ECN-2 Process)

Kodak 5289 800T 800Tungsten Vintage Motion Picture Film Motion Picture Films with the Rem Jet backing in 35 mm Cassettes and Bulk Rolls. As this film requires special processing (ECN-2) and is absolutely not to be sent out to any regular labs, because the protective backing can "gum up the...

www.ultrafineonline.com

While I'm not in that market at all, I can't see myself supporting CineStill via word or deed ever again.
They made bank on the film community and now trash that same community? No thanks.

35mm Movie KODAK VISION 800T 5289 400' 400FT 35MM NEW | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 35mm Movie KODAK VISION 800T 5289 400' 400FT 35MM NEW at the best online prices at eBay!

www.ebay.com.au

 

[vandergus]

Some bits that haven't been mentioned...

The actual legal actions that have been taken are in dispute. CatLABS claims they "were sued". CineStill claims they were doing the minimum possible work to defend their trademarks and keep them active (not suing). There's no easy way to sus all this out.

The initial trademark application for "800T" was actually denied for being merely descriptive. A second application was filed arguing for the trademark under a standard of acquired distinctiveness. In USPTO speak "because of the extensive use and promotion of the mark, consumers now directly associate the mark with the applicant as the source of those goods." That is obviously up for debate.

In my opinion, what this whole saga really highlights is just how little goodwill CineStill had cultivated in the more dedicated analog user-bases (i.e. people on internet forums). Reddit has gone absolutely ham over this, but it seems like the pump was already primed with pent up frustration. It's easy to witch hunt somebody you already don't like. If a company that was in better standing with the community were involved in a complicated legal dispute where not all the facts were verifiable, I imagine the reaction would have been more of a shrug and a "we'll see how it shakes out".

 

[Kino]

Between the poor factual presentations of all parties, knee-jerk reactions of some and the suspect boilerplate corporate reaction, I don't know where to stand on this one other than "out of the picture".

In the end, only the lawyers will profit from this mess and I will, for one, will just sit this mess out...

 

[pentaxuser]

I suspect we may need to maintain a more objective arms-length view of the actions, motivations etc of all companies that sell film. Isn't their objective to produce films for our consumption at a profit and in a way that maximises profit

I am not sure that the fact that film is our hobby and they supply products that feeds our hobby makes any difference to what "film makers" do in terms of their behaviour compared to any other companies in the market place

Are they doing what they are doing simply because it is their sole desire to "help" us. I doubt it I always find it sobering to image the following situation: The world's ability to produce any kind of pictures or visual communications in terms of digital means has now ceased. Unfortunately film making has come to the end except for company X so a true monopoly now exists

Do we expect any changes in that company's behaviour towards those to whom it was always believed to be " there for " and to help?

pentaxuser

 

[Oldwino]

I suspect we may need to maintain a more objective arms-length view of the actions, motivations etc of all companies that sell film. Isn't their objective to produce films for our consumption at a profit and in a way that maximises profit

I am not sure that the fact that film is our hobby and they supply products that feeds our hobby makes any difference to what "film makers" do in terms of their behaviour compared to any other companies in the market place

Are they doing what they are doing simply because it is their sole desire to "help" us. I doubt it I always find it sobering to image the following situation: The world's ability to produce any kind of pictures or visual communications in terms of digital means has now ceased. Unfortunately film making has come to the end except for company X so a true monopoly now exists

Do we expect any changes in that company's behaviour towards those to whom it was always believed to be " there for " and to help?

pentaxuser

It does reek slightly of the death throes of color film, arguing over the scraps of the market's carcass...Thankfully we still have Ilford making (somewhat) affordable black & white films.

 

[retina_restoration]

Some bits that haven't been mentioned...

The actual legal actions that have been taken are in dispute. CatLABS claims they "were sued". CineStill claims they were doing the minimum possible work to defend their trademarks and keep them active (not suing). There's no easy way to sus all this out.

I wouldn't take anything Omer says at face value, honestly. He's shown the community that he can be completely disingenuous about his business dealings. Transparency? Not in his vocabulary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't most black and white films list daylight and tungsten speeds? Seems kinda crazy to forbid the description of a color film that is balanced for tungsten. Of course someone needs to tm 3200 and 3400. Tungsten lamps are going to be as rare as kerosene lanterns.

Maybe 800 Softwhite

Decades ago Kodak and other film companies stopped posting the tungsten speeds and now for the most part only post the ISO. I just use the ISO for night photography and I have never had a problem using only the ISO.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Reminds me of the time I went into a sports store, and asked them to stop using the name O'Neill on certain clothing, or give me a discount....

 

[Henning Serger]

Just FYI:

Film Brand CineStill Swarmed by an Angry Mob Stoked by Misinformation

The story behind CineStill's viral controversy.

petapixel.com

Quite a long read. At least with some more background information and differentiation. Some questions maybe better answered by it, some questions certainly still remain open.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[retina_restoration]

Cinestill writes in that piece:

“We have never been pushed to the point where we’ve had to consider entering into litigation, and we hope we never have to,” CineStill tells PetaPixel. “There is no lawsuit involving CineStill. We have not sued anyone. Any statements suggesting otherwise are simply false and misleading.” (Emphasis mine)


“For CatLABS specifically, we have always tried to do business and share the market with him, but to no avail,” CineStill tells PetaPixel.
“He has deliberately spread unfounded rumors within the industry, and instigated a conflict by infringing on our trademarks and forcing us to talk to his lawyer when we reached out with a courtesy notice to inform him of how to resolve the issues without cost or business interruption. Now he is claiming that we sued him and many other small businesses around the world, which is completely false. He and others with a similar jealousy are fabricating stories and participating in unfair competition in order to hurt our business and have made up claims of behavior that we have not actually engaged in, in order to tarnish our reputation. It is illegal. And ethically wrong,” CineStill continues.

So, a badly written Reddit post has inflamed the Internet and turned customers against Cinestill, because CatLabs owner has posted a misleading, inflammatory article about Cinestill's defense of its Trademark. Well done, Internet.

 

[Film-Niko]

So, a badly written Reddit post has inflamed the Internet and turned customers against Cinestill, because CatLabs owner has posted a misleading, inflammatory article about Cinestill's defense of its Trademark. Well done, Internet.

I have not forgotten with how much disrespect towards us members the CatLabs owner behaved here on photrio at the introduction of his latest film.
He completely tried to fool us with his marketing fairy tales about "designed in Boston" and "a film never been on the market before".
Well, we here tested his film intensively and found as a clear result that it is just repackaged Agfa Aviphot Pan 200. A film available under different other brands and names for more than 15 years. So absolutely nothing new or unique at all, as he wrongly claimed.

This guy has meanwhile lost all his credibility. That's the sad and bitter truth.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't especially trust CineStill or CatLabs. Neither has done a lot to gain my trust in recent times.

I would say that "800T" hasn't become synonomous with CineStill. And I don't see CineStill politely asking any of the other people repackaging 500T as 35mm camera film to stop calling it what it is.

The whole thing seems petty and childish on both sides. Meanwhile I'll buy Candido 800T because they actually seem like sane, pleasant people.