• 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

What is happening to Cinestill?

Latest Gallery

Two Rocks

H
Two Rocks

  • 2
  • 2
  • 27
.

A
.

  • 2
  • 3
  • 27

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,583
Messages
2,856,784
Members
101,913
Latest member
General
Recent bookmarks
0
CineStill do get credit in my mind for coming up with the idea of re-purposed motion picture film with remjet removed, and taking some real risks to bring it to the market.
But they should be pushing the CineStill brand name, not arguing about "800T" or anything similar.
 
That Petapixel "article" reads like a CineStill promo. With nice pictures and all. All on Cinestill film, of course :wink:
 
Film-Niko said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course the CatLabs films are all just repackaged films manufactured elsewhere under a number of names. And the current version of X Film 80 MKII is Fomapan - just one look at the emerald green dye that the film sheds tells you this. My tests with it in reciprocity territory also tells me it's Fomapan. Nothing wrong with Fomapan, of course, but CatLabs has been totally unwilling to share ANY technical details about this film, its characteristic curve, spectral sensitivity or reciprocity traits, to the point of rudeness when asked for information. As far as I'm concerned, Omer had not yet earned any respectability, so there's none to lose.
 
retina_restoration said:
(...)

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, my objection to CineStill's behaviour comes not from their interaction with CatLabs, but from their threats to resellers of a Chinese product utilising the same Kodak 500T film and Remjet removal. The small eBay seller who is trying to do the right thing, describes the product exactly as it is but has been told, basically, that "800" and "T" are not to be seen in the same postcode. I read their listing - it's purely descriptive. CineStill went directly to eBay, citing trademark infringement or whatever and eBay took that at face value - which is understandable, but CineStill should never have been granted that trademark in the first place and the fact they've gone after small traders who are easily intimidated and can't afford to fight it, speaks volumes.
 
Molli said:
Actually, my objection to CineStill's behaviour comes not from their interaction with CatLabs, but from their threats to resellers of a Chinese product utilising the same Kodak 500T film and Remjet removal. The small eBay seller who is trying to do the right thing, describes the product exactly as it is but has been told, basically, that "800" and "T" are not to be seen in the same postcode. I read their listing - it's purely descriptive. CineStill went directly to eBay, citing trademark infringement or whatever and eBay took that at face value - which is understandable, but CineStill should never have been granted that trademark in the first place and the fact they've gone after small traders who are easily intimidated and can't afford to fight it, speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

CineStill has stated that they have NOT sued anyone. But they ARE obligated to protect their Trademark if they want to keep it.
 
retina_restoration said:
CineStill has stated that they have NOT sued anyone. But they ARE obligated to protect their Trademark if they want to keep it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say CineStill sued them, nor did the reseller I was referring to in my post. Only CatLabs posted under the headline of "I'm being sued" and, like others, they don't have much standing with me either.
At any rate, as I said, I'm not in the market for any of their products (although I do keep taking a look at CineStill's C41 chemicals because offerings are scarce and very expensive in Australia) but I'll simply steer clear of them altogether now. Threatening a small trader for describing the product they're selling accurately is not CineStill protecting their trademark, it's simply them casting a wide net over vulnerable people to shut down competition. They haven't said boo to the company actually producing the film, just the resellers.
 
So CatLabs is at it again. They have proven they can't be believed or trusted. What a joke of a company.

Jim B.
 
CS saying in their Petapixel PR "fluffpeice" that "He and others with a similar jealousy" isnt gonna do em any favors either
 
I've had good service from Catlabs. The Reddit post from Omer is exhausting to read. I'm not a customer for films from nearly anyone other than Kodak Alaris, Ilford, Foma and a bit from Fujifilm.
So I guess my opinion isn't very important.
 
retina_restoration said:
CineStill has stated that they have NOT sued anyone. But they ARE obligated to protect their Trademark if they want to keep it.
Click to expand...

to be honest, thinking about trademarking "800T" instead of something like "cinestill 800T" is enough for me to have a clear idea about that business
 
Eugen Mezei said:
Rather it was you who stopped reading the datasheets of the films. Kodak and Fuji both provide different E.I. for daylight and tungsten for their black and white emulsions. For their color emulsions they provide which filter is to be used and what factor you have to add/substract. Ilford, Agfa and I believe even Foma does the same.
Click to expand...


I just checked all of Kodak's current B&W film data sheets (Tri-X, Tmax 100, Tmax 400, Tmax p3200). None give different speeds for tungsten and daylight. Same with Foma and Ilford. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
 
retina_restoration said:
Of course the CatLabs films are all just repackaged films manufactured elsewhere under a number of names. And the current version of X Film 80 MKII is Fomapan - just one look at the emerald green dye that the film sheds tells you this. My tests with it in reciprocity territory also tells me it's Fomapan. Nothing wrong with Fomapan, of course, but CatLabs has been totally unwilling to share ANY technical details about this film, its characteristic curve, spectral sensitivity or reciprocity traits, to the point of rudeness when asked for information. As far as I'm concerned, Omer had not yet earned any respectability, so there's none to lose.
Click to expand...

I have both CatLABS 80 II, and Fomapan in sheets. I wonder which Fomapan the CatLABS is... I'm thinking Fomapan 100...But I cannot get a Zone I density unless I rate it at EI 32... I should probably do some side by side tests...
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
I have both CatLABS 80 II, and Fomapan in sheets. I wonder which Fomapan the CatLABS is... I'm thinking Fomapan 100...But I cannot get a Zone I density unless I rate it at EI 32... I should probably do some side by side tests...
Click to expand...
I believe it's Fomapan 100. My work with Fomapan suggests it must be rated at 40 ASA or less to optimize shadow retention. Same for the "CatLabs" MKII
 
retina_restoration said:
I believe it's Fomapan 100. My work with Fomapan suggests it must be rated at 40 ASA or less to optimize shadow retention. Same for the "CatLabs" MKII
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Thank you!
 
From a moderator's perspective...
Kindly cut back on the slanging back and forth.
If you don't believe something is included in the available information, it is fine to post that, without commenting on someone else's understanding of the issue.
And if someone else can point to contrary information, it is fine to post that, without commenting on someone else's understanding of the issue.
 
Eugen Mezei said:
Just when I was trying to overcome my antipaty for all the throatcutting resellers and convince myself that Cinestill indeed does something of added value by offering Kodak XX in 120 format. Not that I would consider Catlab different to all the others, but I was indeed at the verge of shelling out money for a dozen rolls of XX in 120.
The situation given, does anybody know how to order XX as 70 mm from Kodak?
Click to expand...

I think it's actually 65mm.

However, it's not listed in Kodak's current motion picture film catalog here:


I've been wondering why B&H and Freestyle have been discounting the Cinestill 120 significantly of late. In fact, Freestyle has it marked as "Clearance".

Is it possible that Kodak stopped making this after it was used for Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" and what's out there is all that's left? (I have no idea if this is the case, so don't say it's so. I'm just wondering, b/c it's not in the catalog.)
 
Last edited:
Eugen Mezei said:
The situation given, does anybody know how to order XX as 70 mm from Kodak?
Click to expand...

Bit late now, but as I understand it, you can’t. I believe all the short ends were bought up by Asian resellers. Someone I know on Discord asked about it, and there might be new cans still unused, but the rep said they aren’t selling it because it can’t be processed by any motion picture lab. Maybe I’ll email them fir shits and giggles and see if they have any that I could buy. If the answer is yes, be on the lookout next summer…
 
As I understand it, the 65mm XX that Eastman Kodak made at the request of those making "Oppenheimer" was a special order, and never intended to be a regular (or even irregular) catalogue item.
If you are willing to buy as much film as is needed for a major motion picture shooting in IMax format, you too can have Eastman Kodak cut some for you.
 
chuckroast said:
Is it possible that Kodak stopped making this after it was used for Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" and what's out there is all that's left? (I have no idea if this is the case, so don't say it's so. I'm just wondering, b/c it's not in the catalog.)
Click to expand...
Nope! They are still making 65mm, it was used in Oppenheimer most recently.

MattKing said:
As I understand it, the 65mm XX that Eastman Kodak made at the request of those making "Oppenheimer" was a special order, and never intended to be a regular (or even irregular) catalogue item.
If you are willing to buy as much film as is needed for a major motion picture shooting in IMax format, you too can have Eastman Kodak cut some for you.
Click to expand...
This is true, but from the second-hand info I received, it seems like they do have extra cans. I could be completely wrong though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom