Anyone shooting Cinestill?

Not Cinestill, per se, but Kodak 500T (5219), which is the source stock with the RemJet on (so none of that love-it-or-hate-it halation).

CBjMeA1WAAAMQba.jpg:large
 
Not Cinestill, per se, but Kodak 500T (5219), which is the source stock with the RemJet on (so none of that love-it-or-hate-it halation).
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to try to see the difference between the same shot taken with and without the Rem Jet. I wondered about that.
 
dmr said:
It would be interesting to try to see the difference between the same shot taken with and without the Rem Jet. I wondered about that.
Click to expand...

For a shot like this, the only difference would be halation around the mirror in the background. Tones would be very similar, though.

On the other hand, 500T can be had for $7/roll, whereas CineStill is $9/roll. If you're developing the film yourself, you may as well buy the original and just remove the RJ in the process (http://blog.wakingmist.com/howto-develop-motion-picture-film/).
 
edge100 said:
On the other hand, 500T can be had for $7/roll, whereas CineStill is $9/roll. If you're developing the film yourself, you may as well buy the original and just remove the RJ in the process (http://blog.wakingmist.com/howto-develop-motion-picture-film/).
Click to expand...

You say $7 per roll? Where? Does anyone else sell the Eastman motion picture films in 35mm cartridges other than CineStill? I also noticed that the CineStill web site says they are now sold out, so I'm glad I had what I had.

For someone who barely has time to get out and shoot anymore, home developing is really not an option. I've done it back in college (B&W), but I don't particularly enjoy it.
 
dmr said:
You say $7 per roll? Where? Does anyone else sell the Eastman motion picture films in 35mm cartridges other than CineStill? I also noticed that the CineStill web site says they are now sold out, so I'm glad I had what I had.

For someone who barely has time to get out and shoot anymore, home developing is really not an option. I've done it back in college (B&W), but I don't particularly enjoy it.
Click to expand...

http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/135-cinema-film-fpp-kodak-vision-500t-1-roll
 
tonyc said:
Hello

I shoot vision 250D ( daylight balanced )
see pic below:

There is not much point using the 500T with
correction for daylight use as you loose nearly
a whole stop.

It is way cheaper to buy a 400ft roll and spool
your own.

Also Fuji Eterna Vivid 250D and 160T are amazing.
These Cine films are pretty much state of the art
for film neg.

U11568I1424903740.SEQ.1.jpg


-TC
Click to expand...

I like example you have. Good balance of colors.

Thank you for great info! I just used it. :)
 
I bought a few to try it... Still in my fridge... However, I bought some 300 metres of Fuji cinema film (F-500T) - I like it. I develop it myself using rollei digibase - remjet goes away pretty easily with the final wash...
 
Bought a roll of both films and currently halfway through the daylight in my OM1n. Hope to have something to show soon.

Paul
 
Yeah, there is certainly more latitude in terms of exposure, so it's pretty easy to match the vividness of slide film even if you're a little under/over exposed. I don't think I'll be using 50D instead of slide film though; I'll be using it side by side.
 
Ok, I'm finally going to ask this since I've been wondering and never found an answer. If I'm shooting the Cinestill 800 with an 85b filter can I leave my camera set to ISO800 or do I need to change this. I've seen folks mention to rate this at 500.
 
sjauch said:
Ok, I'm finally going to ask this since I've been wondering and never found an answer. If I'm shooting the Cinestill 800 with an 85b filter can I leave my camera set to ISO800 or do I need to change this. I've seen folks mention to rate this at 500.
Click to expand...
IMO it depends if your exposure is TTL in this case I would leave it at 800. The trough the lens light meter read the correct exposure. If you use an external light meter you must correct the exposure depending on the factor of your filter.

robert
 
Cinestill 800 - Bessa R - heliar 50F2 anniversary edition

U3692I1436097386.SEQ.0.jpg


Cinestill 50 - Leica M7 - heliar 50F2 anniversary edition

U3692I1436196517.SEQ.0.jpg


Cinestill 50 - Leica M7 - CV 75 F2,5

U3692I1436097095.SEQ.1.jpg
 
robert blu said:
IMO it depends if your exposure is TTL in this case I would leave it at 800. The trough the lens light meter read the correct exposure. If you use an external light meter you must correct the exposure depending on the factor of your filter.

robert
Click to expand...

Great, thanks. Yup, ttl metering.
 
Cinestill is bringing "their own" Cinestill Cs41 developing kit to the market.

Unfortunately, it looks like just another repackaged C-41 kit (with Blix). Not sure why they didn't make a proper ECN-2 kit available to the buyers of their Cinestill films?

Anyway, I did a little comparison processing Vision3 5203 50D (same as Cinestill 50) in different chemicals. I knew that I will get a picture with all the alternative processing methods, I was rather more interested in how much work will be needed to get to the final picture after scanning.

Here it goes:
1. Standard C-41, 3:15@38°C (FujiHunt C-41 X-Press kit; separate Bleach and Fix)
2. RA-4, 3:00@38°C (Compard Digbase RA-4 print kit; full strength Developer; Bleach and Fix from C-41 kit)
3. ECN-2, 3:00@41°C (ECN-2 developer according to published formulae; Bleach and Fix from C-41 kit)

Remjet was removed prior to developing. Scanning to RAW (Minolta 5400 scanner), all with the same exposure. Inverted in ColorPerfect, reference white-balance taken from the white part of the tin, BP Tail adjusted so there is no blocking in shadows and Blacks taken down till I was happy with the highlights. Test picture was taken an hour or so before sunset, warm light, all pictures from the same roll taken with the same camera/lens.

The results after adjusting the scans (mixed order):

test_ra4-c41-ecn2-final1.jpg

(raw, inverted)

test_ra4-c41-ecn2-final2.jpg

(raw, inverted)

test_ra4-c41-ecn2-final3.jpg

(raw, inverted)

I tried to match the scans in Lightroom, but didn't go after every single difference. Some did need more work than others.

Would you care what chemicals were used if you didn't have to scan and adjust the scans yourself? Does it make perfect sense for Cinestill to just recommend C-41 processing for ECN-2 film? Well, I think it does as long as users are sending their films for development and scanning to labs. But home processing in C-41 and scanning, I don't know...

I've now tried Vision3 50D, 250D and 500T. All are great. I probably wouldn't be able to tell 250D and Portra apart, but 50D is nothing like Ektar 100 (except that it's a fine grained film) and 500T doesn't have a counterpart in current C-41 selection of films.

Man, I wish that Cinestill would cut those films to 4x5 size and just leave the remjet on.


BTW, which is which? Which looks best to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom