Ilford FP4 Cine film £2.99 for 36 exposures

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes it's true.

As described by 'Mr Leica' Matt Osborne a company in the UK has gotten hold of a LOT of FP4 Cine film and are respooling it onto 36 exposure cassettes priced at £2.99.

For Matt's You Tube Video click here

https://youtu.be/jxCrpkpu-98?si=-cxvt4BuEZRCj5Pq

For Analogue Cameras click here

https://www.analoguecameras.co.uk/product/ilford-fp4-type-517-100-35mm-36exp/

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[benqui]

Thanks a lot for the information. For sure I will give it a try!

[Borna]

I am not so familiar with these type of cine rolls, what is actually the difference from normal FP4 and Cine version? 

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, Borna said:

I am not so familiar with these type of cine rolls, what is actually the difference from normal FP4 and Cine version? 

It's probably the same emulsion for Ilford (Kodak and Agfa offered cine-only emulsions). The edge markings will be different or absent, and the sprocket holes could have a different shape. Cine camera negatives usually have square sprocket holes that minimize weave (where the image moves slightly between frames). Still films have slightly rounded perforations that are less prone to tearing. The perforations shouldn't make much difference, but don't force the winding lever at the end of the roll.

I bulk-loaded from a 100m roll of Agfa cine film in university. It worked fine, except that I had to load in the dark, estimating the film length with my arms, because the roll was too big to fit in a bulk loader.

[hansvons]

On 7/6/2024 at 9:22 AM, 250swb said:

For Analogue Cameras click here

https://www.analoguecameras.co.uk/product/ilford-fp4-type-517-100-35mm-36exp/

 

This is an incredible low price. They must practically got the 400 foot rolls for free. I use often Kodak 5222 B&W cine film for portraits, anything that benefits from steeper gamma and contrasty skin tones. 

FP4 is the opposite to that. It’s gentle, soft, loves high-key lighting. Only shot with it a few times. Probably should include it in my arsenal.

Speaking of affordable film, I was surprised when I learned that my dealer for regular film stock (not cine stocks) offers Tri-X for 1 euro less than Delta 400 at 9.95 EUR. Every time I digitise and edit Tri-X photos, I get confirmed why it’s the B&W benchmark.

Delta 400 and TMax 400 resolve visibly better, but neither look as nice on skin tones. HP5 might have more DR but has that greyishness. Kentmere 400 is markedly cheaper, and so is Foma 400, and it tells (Kentmere 400 and Forma 400 are very different, though). And even if you compare Tri-X to ISO 100 films such as the brilliant Delta 100 or the gentle FP4, it holds its own (not in resolution). I think it comes down to how it handles red. Contrary to (most) Ilford films it’s not noticeably more sensitive in the red spectrum which makes skin tones less bright. Ok, total diversion from the topic. 

[250swb]

The six rolls I ordered have just arrived and they look very professional in presentation, and the film including the sprocket holes is visually identical with a regular FP4. I'll report back after I've shot and developed a roll.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

have a feeling they bought a surplus from someone going out of business

It's probably left-over film stock from a motion picture. Any stock that is left-over after production is sold-off.

FP4 is rare as a motion picture stock, so you could probably find-out which movies have recently completed principal photography. It's not Oppenheimer, because they used Kodak 70mm B&W stock.

[Anbaric]

The Analogue Cameras page indicates this is FP4 rather than FP4+. The change to the newer emulsion happened at some point in the 90s for still camera film, though I suppose they might have continued making the older version for cine use if it had some advantage for this application. But maybe this is just very old stock someone had in a freezer somewhere?

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Anbaric said:

The Analogue Cameras page indicates this is FP4 rather than FP4+. The change to the newer emulsion happened at some point in the 90s for still camera film, though I suppose they might have continued making the older version for cine use if it had some advantage for this application. But maybe this is just very old stock someone had in a freezer somewhere?

Given there are no amendments to development to compensate for age I doubt it is 'very old' stock. 

 

Edited July 12, 2024 by 250swb

[Anbaric]

14 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Given there are no amendments to development to compensate for age I doubt it is 'very old' stock.

Dev times are longer than for modern FP4 Plus, though I don't know if that's a property of the film (which might have been deep frozen) or its age:

https://www.analoguecameras.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ILFORD-FP4-TYPE517.pdf

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1919/product/688/

[Einst_Stein]

Ilford discontinued cine film around 2003. So this must be a very old (outdated) film. Though B&W (non C41) film is usually much more tolerable even outdated.

The question is the base of the film. Cine film requires remjet layer on the back, The purpose is to make it smooth to travel fast in the motion camera, also due to its conductivity, to avoid electric static sparking. This layer has to be removed in the beginning of the develop process. For home darkroom, especially if using one-shot chemical, it is less critical, otherwise the residue of the remjet will pollute the chemical,. 

The remjet layer might have been removed before selling the respooled film. Need to check.

Edited July 13, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

The question is the base of the film. Cine film requires remjet layer on the back, The purpose is to make it smooth to travel fast in the motion camera, also due to its conductivity, to avoid electric static sparking

I did two cine projects with Ilford SFX. I don't recall any Remjet coating. One of the issues we had with Ilford at the time (20+ years ago) was that it was stills stock spooled differently. It couldn't handle the handling that motion picture negatives go through . We had some emulsion flaking in the telecine, which complicated the post-production process tremendously.

I wouldn't worry about any of this for stills use of course.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

I did two cine projects with Ilford SFX. I don't recall any Remjet coating. One of the issues we had with Ilford at the time (20+ years ago) was that it was stills stock spooled differently. It couldn't handle the handling that motion picture negatives go through . We had some emulsion flaking in the telecine, which complicated the post-production process tremendously.

I wouldn't worry about any of this for stills use of course.

Remjet is invented later than some B&W films. Instead, this films use other type base layer for the similar purpose. This extra layer would be removed during the process. The process was developed to work with the residue.I would guess your Ilford SFX might have this and will get into the chemical.  

Which develop process can work with this residue may vary.

[250swb]

I've posted an image made with Ilford 517 FP4 Cine film in the 'I like film..' thread

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page/4542/#comment-5439313

Disappointingly I didn't have to do anything complicated like removing a Remjet layer, or mixing exotic chemicals to process the film, it's just FX39 II 1+9 at 20c for 9.5 minutes. The film base is identical in density to FP4+ (or Plus) and the grain also appears identical, very fine and smooth.