Removal of remjet speeds up the film. So it’s not all bad.
Artisanal labs should consider selling straight Vision3 and develop ECN-2.
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.
You've had 8 today all ready.
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.
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.
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.Seems petty, and in the end it's the consumers who suffer.
I agree, or perhaps the red light reflecting off the film base without the REM-JET, creating Halos around objects adds densityI 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.
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.
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?
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.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 itI 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
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.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.
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?