sblitz Posted September 24, 2015 Share #1 Posted September 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) FPP offers Kodak Vision 3 motion picture film rolled rolled in 35mm canisters and sold as 50 daylight, 250daylight and 500 tungsten. Appears the same as CineStill but the backing is still on the FPP versions. With the backing you have to send away to get developed (they will sell you a kit for home development, why not?). Is there an advantage / disadvantage to the backing? halos? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 24, 2015 Posted September 24, 2015 Hi sblitz, Take a look here Kodak Vision 3 Motion Picture Film and CineStill. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
A miller Posted September 24, 2015 Share #2 Posted September 24, 2015 interesting but why have the extra work to get it developed? this will add to the cost, and I don't even know how much the film you are talking about costs? So you haven't really fully presented the economic case for it, and I stress "economic" The Cinestill 800T has a native ISO of 600 (or a little lower, I can't really remember), so the only thing to be gained is the 250ISO daylight film, which doesn't really excite me given the other daylight films in that speed range... And what is "FPP" anyway?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted September 24, 2015 The economic becomes viable if the difference is compelling. Wondering if it is or isn't with the backing on the film. FPP is the film project. They sell lots of film such as Esstman xx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 25, 2015 Share #4 Posted September 25, 2015 The economic becomes viable if the difference is compelling. Wondering if it is or isn't with the backing on the film. FPP is the film project. They sell lots of film such as Esstman xx well, I guess you have to try some and share the results!! Hope it works out better than my (expensive) lomo purple experiment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted September 25, 2015 Haha!!! Hope so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 25, 2015 Share #6 Posted September 25, 2015 ...Is there an advantage / disadvantage to the backing? halos? From a Kodak document on motion picture film: "Remjet....has four purposes: antihalation, anti-static, lubrication and scratch protection." Remjet is a coating of carbon black (a.k.a. soot, graphite) in a water-soluble binder. The blackness prevents halation (reflections from the film base or the pressure plate behind the film that would produce a "glow" around highlights). Carbon is an electric conductor, and wicks away any build-up of static electricity. Carbon is a lubricant (think graphite engine oils) since the atoms can slide around past one another. Finally, it is a layer than can "take the scatches" (like the disposable plastic protectors for camera/phone LCD screens), and then be removed, leaving the film unscratched. Remember that motion picture film - in the normal use it is engineered for - is under far more stress than still film. At a bare minimum, it is travelling at 12 frames per second (24 half-frame-sized images) all the time. And much faster than that, if one is shooting slow-motion (4x slo-mo = 96 fps), or Technirama-type movie formats (where the film travels sideways, as it does in a Leica or a Hassy XPan), with "over-sized-full-frame" images side by side: http://www.brianpritchard.com/Technirama1.jpg ) - effectively the same as shooting a motorized Nikon 35mm at 36 fps - a whole "roll," or 5 feet, every second. 300 feet a minute. Which is why it needs the last three functions - static removal, lubrication, and scratch protection - far more than regular still-camera 35mm film. Shooting it in a still camera, the anti-halation protection is the only significant advantage (unless you use a motor and shoot in cold, dry, static-prone situations). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted September 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for picking that up. So it is cinestill without the halos. Just order the Kodak XX bw from them. Will run through that first. Try this later. Thanks again!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 26, 2015 Share #8 Posted September 26, 2015 I am offering Kodak 5222 Double-X for a bottom price in reloadable metal 35mm cassettes. You can compare it with a double speed Plus-X film which is not in production anymore. XX can be used within the iso 100-800 range without any problem. Comparing this bulk (cine) B&W film (122m/400ft) with the actual Tri-X 400 bulk 30,5m/100ft prices, XX is a bargain. The color motion film you have to develop in their special chemicals and yes in an alkaline pre- wash you have to remove the remjet and A.H. layer. Hence you can not develop the film in any standard C-41 process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 28, 2015 Share #9 Posted September 28, 2015 The color motion film you have to develop in their special chemicals and yes in an alkaline pre- wash you have to remove the remjet and A.H. layer. Hence you can not develop the film in any standard C-41 process. Not CineStill film, you develop this in C41 chemicals. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 28, 2015 Share #10 Posted September 28, 2015 So it is cinestill without the halos. You have to try very hard to get halo's with CineStill film, and like a lot of internet misinformation the removal of the Remjet layer has been taken to mean you will get halo's, not that you may get halo's under extreme, accidental, or contrived circumstances. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 28, 2015 Share #11 Posted September 28, 2015 The Cinestill (color) film is especially prepared to remove the remjet layer. Then you can use the C-41 development, however with less quality then the original color cine chemicals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 28, 2015 Share #12 Posted September 28, 2015 Then you can use the C-41 development, however with less quality then the original color cine chemicals. I obviously have no direct comparison as I haven't ever had actual cine film processed to produce a still image and then compare them side by side. But processing CineStill in C41 doesn't reveal any great downsides as far as I can see, in fact it seems to offer wonderful qualities. But isn't that the point, why does the still version have to be the same as the cine version, if it becomes a different type of product by having the Remjet layer removed and processed in C41, but the film still works exceptionally well, then what can be the problem? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 28, 2015 Share #13 Posted September 28, 2015 Populair in countries like Ukraine. Cheap S/E color motion films with home made original chemicals: http://vk.com/fotosyndicate?z=album-19502501_217892950 Then you can reach high quality color negatives for a fraction of the price for any regular professional C-41 films (Ektar 100, pro 160NS, pro 400H). The problem is when I can get cheap Fuji Superia 100 C-41 films which are dumped on the market now for less then €0,45ct all other alternatives are always too expensive. But that is a matter of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.