Kodak Movie film

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read some where about the Kodak movie film, but don't remember where it is. So please forgive me if this looks like a stealing of that talk.

   1: Kodak Movie film is insteresting alternative to the still photography film. For example: 
            Kodak Double-X 35mm x 400ft is ~US$280 (abot 70% of Tri-X etc.);
            Kodak Vision 3 50D 35mm x 400ft is ~US$312, about the same price as Kodak Gold but has different appealing.
            Kodak Vision 3 65mmx 400ft is ~US$680, about 2/3 of Ektar 100 (120).
            The Double-X B&W can be processed in the same way as the still image films (if you can find the develop tool). 
            The Vision-3 color negatives requires process steps to remove the Rem-Jet layer, and can be processed in eithe C41 ad ECN-2. 
            There will be some color difference. subject to personal acceptance.

   2: The chemical costs of ECN-2 is not horribly more expensive than C41. I've seen US$ 21~26 for 1 Liter kit (vs. US$80 per 5L if C41).  

   3. The removal of Rem-jet layer if followed by ECN-2 is quite simple (but might be scary for the fist timer). With C41 could be harder but doable.

   

The appealing of Vision 3 to me is its low contrast. That helps to capture the highlight and dark area on the film, and can be adjusted in digital post processing. 

    There are four Kodak movies films seem attractive:

       1: Kodak Vision 3 50D color negative, 35mm x 400ft

       2: Kodak Vision 3 250D color negative, 65mm x 400ft.

       3: Kodak Vision 3 200T color negative, 65mm x 400ft

       4: Kodak Double-X B&W, 35mm x 400ft.

Anyone has experiences on any of these films?

 

 

 

[250swb]

Haven't CineStill already done the hard work? As an example their 800T is Kodak Vision 3 with the remjet layer removed.

I suppose that means I do have experience of using Kodak cine film because I've used both CineStill 50D and 800T and both are very good. They behave much the same as any other colour film to over and under exposure.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Einst_Stein]

I dont have experiences either, but from what I read, Cinestill repackage/modified movie films have some properties concerns me.

Their major pro and con is the removal of Remjet layer. That makes it lack of AH and anti electric static discharge. Some people may like or ignore the AH-less effect but not me. The electric spark ghost in image due to the lack of no anti electric dischage is another issue though it might not hapoen to me if I dont shoot it with fast rolling. The price is another concern. 

However, your personal experiences would be appreaciated. 

 

[frame-it]

Kodak Vision 2 on M5 and iiif [ecn-2 process]

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by frame-it

[Einst_Stein]

Looks to me they have some blue cast. The contrast also looks stronger than Vision 3 I have seen. I guess it’s your preference in PP?

[giannis]

18 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Anyone has experiences on any of these films?

 

Sure, ask away!

Remjet removal is fine whether in C-41 or ECN-2, since the removal happens with a prebath (which is part of the ECN-2 kit) before the actual development takes place. So as long as you use the ECN-2 prebath, you're fine. It's literally a 10second bath followed by a vigorous wash (kinda like as if you were washing after fixing), just shake the tank harder, as if it were a cocktail shaker. That's pretty much it.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the sharing. 

What do you see the difference of the final removal? The literature suggests do it after fix before stabilizing, while some suggests do it before fix. Is there any difference in the risk of damaging the emulsion?

[giannis]

I do it after fixing and before stabilising for a very simple reason:  after wiping with a wet microfibre cloth, there might be a little bit of dirt on the film (fibres from the cloth, or dust, or fingerprints from handling it), so it'll need to go into a final wash anyway to remove those. So there's no point wiping after the final wash, because you'd have to put it back in anyway, plus you'd be wasting the final bath. But quality wise it's the exact same, doesn't make a difference. Also the final wipedown is not as messy or necessary, with proper washing after the prebath (i.e. before the colour developer goes in), there's very little remjet left and it's not visible with the eye. If you run a wipe over the back of the film, your wipe will get a bit darker as if you wiped say the floor a bit. But that's it, no goo or anything. 

 

Edit: just noticed your question was whether to wipe before or after fixing, I misread it as whether to wipe before or after the final rinse. No, fixing doesn't play a role and you can do it either before or after. However it's really much more convenient to do after fixing. For wiping, you need to take the film off the reel. But for fixing you need the film on the reel to make sure it's fixed properly, same for washing after fixing. If you decided to wipe down before fixing, you'd have a really hard time putting wet film onto wet reels (impossible, if using plastic reels), and since the film emulsion is more fragile when wet, you have a high risk of scratching it when fighting to get it into the reel.

Edited March 14, 2021 by giannis
content

[250swb]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I dont have experiences either, but from what I read, Cinestill repackage/modified movie films have some properties concerns me.

Their major pro and con is the removal of Remjet layer. That makes it lack of AH and anti electric static discharge.

 

Isn't the static discharge related to the speed motion picture film goes through the gate? I don't think any 35mm camera motor drive will replicate that. But CineStill does mean you can send your motion picture film to any lab that does C-41 processing. Admittedly removing the remjet before exposure maybe/does alter the ISO of the film, but that is a debatable subject of it's own.  

[Einst_Stein]

OK, I am all for it. The next question is to choose ISO, 50D (50), 200T (125) or 500T (320).  

Is it true that 200T is actually more grainier than 500T, and the resolution of the three are very similar, that 50D may be even slightly worse than the other two?

[Einst_Stein]

3 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Isn't the static discharge related to the speed motion picture film goes through the gate? I don't think any 35mm camera motor drive will replicate that. But CineStill does mean you can send your motion picture film to any lab that does C-41 processing. Admittedly removing the remjet before exposure maybe/does alter the ISO of the film, but that is a debatable subject of it's own.  

I also think the ESD problem is unlikely to happen in my usage. I will take Cinestill's claim just as a reference. I will also consider the user's reports. 

The main issue I have is Cinestill's price. Do you have better suggestion?

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

The main issue I have is Cinestill's price. Do you have better suggestion?

The better suggestion would be to find a lab that removes the remjet coating on a 35mm or 120 roll, but you won't. So the CineStill price reflects what it takes to remove the coating before you expose it, not after. You can go around the houses but CineStill 800T even used as a 'daylight' film is a superb low grain high latitude film that can be processed at home with C-41. I would say that not many people will have a go at the 'authentic' way to process it, including investing in bulk film purchases and chemicals, but are still happy to buy a C-41 kit and spend the difference on CineStill with the option of using it for other colour neg films as well.

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, 250swb said:

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by 250swb

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, 250swb said:

 

 

Just now, 250swb said:

double post

 

[giannis]

14 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

OK, I am all for it. The next question is to choose ISO, 50D (50), 200T (125) or 500T (320).  

Is it true that 200T is actually more grainier than 500T, and the resolution of the three are very similar, that 50D may be even slightly worse than the other two?

50D has exceptionally fine grain, the scanner (Plustek 8100) has trouble picking it up clearly. While it's true that fine grain doesn't necessarily imply higher resolution (this is also true for Ektar for instance, which while finer grained it isn't more resolving than Portra 160), this is usually relevant for films of the same or similar speed. 500T is relatively fine grained for its speed but the difference in graininess is noticeable compared to an ISO50 film. When the difference in granularity is big, it's very unlikely for the grainier film to be higher resolving. Without running any proper resolution tests with charts, I can say 50D is higher resolving. Apparent perception of "sharpness" might differ because a very fine grained film looks smooth while a sharp, bigger grained film you can tell the grain clearly and that can give a perception of sharpness and an illusion of resolution. But 50D is higher resolving than 500T. Also all 3 are high resolving enough so as not to be an issue under normal use in the vast majority of cases.

About 200T and 500T, the 500T is grainier. I'd say the difference in graininess between 500T and 200T is slightly bigger than the difference between 200T and 50D.

[giannis]

23 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I also think the ESD problem is unlikely to happen in my usage.

Static discharge is not an issue at all. The main issues are imo halation and poor keeping qualities of the film after the remjet removal. It degrades faster than original Vision film.

And yeah Cinestill's price is ridiculous. I don't know the situation in US, but in Europe Ektar is about 10€ (or a bit more), Portra 400 is about 12€ and Cinestill 13.5-15€. Meanwhile a 400ft roll of fresh, in-date Vision 3 is 240€+shipping and import tax, say 280€ alltogether. That's for a minimum of 70 "generous" rolls (40exposures), bringing the price to 4€/roll. This is less than half of Ektar, a third of Portra and almost a quarter of Cinestill, for film that's equally good or better.

Financially, it's a nobrainer if you have access to ECN-2 chemistry. Bellini makes an excellent 1L kit for a reasonable price (30-33€ or so), good for 12films minimum (easily reaches 16). Same price as the 1L C-41 kits. The only issue is, there aren't any 5L ECN-2 kits, cause 5L kits are usually much more economical. (For instance, a 5L full kit - i.e. separate bleach and fix - from Fuji is 67€ while a 1L kit with blix is ~33€).

Finally, beware of the Cinestill ECN-2 kit, as far as I know they don't have a full kit, only a partial one to be used with their own films with no remjet.

[Einst_Stein]

Almost all CN-2 kit are not complete. The ones I know for full Vision 3 layer have the powder portion for shipping friendly. The liquid parts (stop, fixer, stabilizer) are the easy to get B&W stuffs.

Here in US I find several suppliers, costs from US$21 to US$30. Most of them are willing volume bargain, such as 5 units x 1L. I figured a 400ft long roll is about 72x 36exp rolls. 1L unit can process 12~24 rolls, so I guess 4~5L should be adequate. It will be very close to Rollei 5L C41 (~US$80)   

In fact, I am going to make 33exp (in frame size) per roll for 24x54 panorama in Hasselblad SWC/500CM. The reduced length is to reserve the space in the canister  for the leading paper to mimic 220 film.

Cinestill mentioned their Cinestill 50D is not repackaged Kodak 50D, they did some modification to make it "better". Of course Kodak knows Remjet is something we want to get ride off and yet it is there. Is Kodak so stupid? Anyway, the photo sharing I saw about the film back reflection is enough to push me back, not to mention the price.

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

The better suggestion would be to find a lab that removes the remjet coating on a 35mm or 120 roll, but you won't. So the CineStill price reflects what it takes to remove the coating before you expose it, not after. You can go around the houses but CineStill 800T even used as a 'daylight' film is a superb low grain high latitude film that can be processed at home with C-41. I would say that not many people will have a go at the 'authentic' way to process it, including investing in bulk film purchases and chemicals, but are still happy to buy a C-41 kit and spend the difference on CineStill with the option of using it for other colour neg films as well.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider it in the future. 

[giannis]

4 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Almost all CN-2 kit are not complete. The ones I know for full Vision 3 layer have the powder portion for shipping friendly.

I didn't mean complete in the sense of liquid concentrates or ready to use solutions. But I meant complete as in having all the ingredients for the full, proper ECN-2 process. That includes the colour developer of course, but *also* the strong sulfuric acid stop, and the specific bleach, as well as the prebath for the remjet removal. Some kits omit the stop, or use C-41 bleach instead of the specific (and stronger) ferricyanide bleach that ECN-2 needs. I won't go into detail, but all those components are needed for correct formation of the dyes, some are formed in the bleach even. Some kits, like from Cinestill, even omits the prebath for remjet removal! Which is absolutely essential if you process any film other than those from Cinestill.

 

14 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Cinestill mentioned their Cinestill 50D is not repackaged Kodak 50D, they did some modification to make it "better".

Yeah I don't believe that for a second, it's pure marketing crap. There's no way to "improve" a film after it's been coated. Unless for extremely niche cases (hypersensitisation etc.). Also there's no way for a company like Cinestill to have even a remote fraction of the equipment and knowhow to "improve" a cutting edge film. As a comparison, there are film *manufacturers* with over 30-50 years of experience, and they still can't produce a modern colour film, if they tried hard maybe they could produce something from the 80's. Only Kodak and Fuji have the capacity to produce modern colour film, and a distant third was Agfa until they stopped over a decade ago.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

34 minutes ago, giannis said:

I didn't mean complete in the sense of liquid concentrates or ready to use solutions. But I meant complete as in having all the ingredients for the full, proper ECN-2 process. That includes the colour developer of course, but *also* the strong sulfuric acid stop, and the specific bleach, as well as the prebath for the remjet removal. Some kits omit the stop, or use C-41 bleach instead of the specific (and stronger) ferricyanide bleach that ECN-2 needs. I won't go into detail, but all those components are needed for correct formation of the dyes, some are formed in the bleach even. Some kits, like from Cinestill, even omits the prebath for remjet removal! Which is absolutely essential if you process any film other than those from Cinestill.

I see, I didn't notice that. I will try the most complete kit I can find.