mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I've made my support for the Ferrania film Kickstarter project fairly apparent. But I do believe this project:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinestill/cinestill-medium-format-film
...is also worth backing, albeit perhaps somewhat less so than the one from Ferrania. [Note, BTW, that I was directed to it by the fine folks at Ferrania, who can obviously appreciate any project involving film continuation and/or revival.]
I've kicked the can, despite the (IMO) considerably lower liklihood of the Cinestill project hitting it's funding goal.
You might be interested, you might not...
...Mike
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinestill/cinestill-medium-format-film
...is also worth backing, albeit perhaps somewhat less so than the one from Ferrania. [Note, BTW, that I was directed to it by the fine folks at Ferrania, who can obviously appreciate any project involving film continuation and/or revival.]
I've kicked the can, despite the (IMO) considerably lower liklihood of the Cinestill project hitting it's funding goal.
You might be interested, you might not...
...Mike
marcr1230
Well-known
I didn't understand from the kickstarter if they are somehow pre-processing existing motion picture film or creating their own film from scratch
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
My understanding is that it's Kodak motion picture stock ("Kodak Vision3 500T 5219") altered so it can be processed in standard C-41 chemistry.
But don't hold me to that - I don't know enough to really know...
...Mike
But don't hold me to that - I don't know enough to really know...
...Mike
V-12
Well-known
The film exists, they aren't making it, but importantly they have a way to remove the 'remjet' backing (a tarry substance) without damaging the film. I imagine this requires an automated process being established. It allows the film to be processed at home in C41 kits or at a regular lab.
The 35mm version of this film is very beautiful and very fine grain (800 ISO!!) and although ostensibly tungsten balanced doesn't really need any filters for daylight use.
V
The 35mm version of this film is very beautiful and very fine grain (800 ISO!!) and although ostensibly tungsten balanced doesn't really need any filters for daylight use.
V
cassel
Well-known
I use Cinestill T-800 35mm film and can say it is great! Especially for indoor, artificial light and night shots.
tonyc
Established
I think they are using the Kodak 500T format
in 65mm for motion picture shooting.
Although this normally has perforations, so maybe a special
order with Kodak to obtain non-perforated stock.
This might explain the need for the big Kickstarter money, as to
order a non-perf stock must need quite a large minimum
order with Kodak.
It is great to shoot 500T, as others have shown with
the 35mm version.
But as Cinestill take of the ramjet first, they are also
removing the anti-halation layer, which is not great.
[ a lot of glow on bright high-con areas ]
Not sure how they can claim it has be specially modified
for C41 process [ apart from the absence of ramjet ].
As the film is designed for ECN-2 process not C41.
Not to be downer.
Good luck to them, 120 500T !!
Let's shoot more film !!
-TC
in 65mm for motion picture shooting.
Although this normally has perforations, so maybe a special
order with Kodak to obtain non-perforated stock.
This might explain the need for the big Kickstarter money, as to
order a non-perf stock must need quite a large minimum
order with Kodak.
It is great to shoot 500T, as others have shown with
the 35mm version.
But as Cinestill take of the ramjet first, they are also
removing the anti-halation layer, which is not great.
[ a lot of glow on bright high-con areas ]
Not sure how they can claim it has be specially modified
for C41 process [ apart from the absence of ramjet ].
As the film is designed for ECN-2 process not C41.
Not to be downer.
Good luck to them, 120 500T !!
Let's shoot more film !!
-TC
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I know that this one doesn't have the cachet of the Ferrania Film project, and nor should it, but I'd still like to see this one get up. I've attempted to show my sincerity by backing the thing with actual (though at this point only really potential) money, but nonetheless right now it seems like it won't get up.
I think that's a shame, really...
982
Backers
$100,299
pledged of $360,000 goal
13
days to go
...Mike
I think that's a shame, really...
982
Backers
$100,299
pledged of $360,000 goal
13
days to go
...Mike
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Maybe it's the 120 shooters profile? I suspect, and may be wrong it's happened before, that more 120 shooters are "pro", weddings especially, and are not seeing the kickstarter or are happy with current negative C41 stock, and there isn't much wrong with it.
Yes I've seen wedding shooters using it, well, the 35mm version, particularly Americans but as previous comments have pointed out the lack of remjet does lead to some "interesting" effects. Perhaps they should have talked to the lomography people about a mimum order?
These with the current 35mm stock:
Halation around point light sources- love them or hate them?
Just artificial light,bit underexposed:
Yes I've seen wedding shooters using it, well, the 35mm version, particularly Americans but as previous comments have pointed out the lack of remjet does lead to some "interesting" effects. Perhaps they should have talked to the lomography people about a mimum order?
These with the current 35mm stock:
Halation around point light sources- love them or hate them?
Just artificial light,bit underexposed:
HHPhoto
Well-known
I have supported the CineStill kickstarter.
I have supported Film Ferrania as well.
I am convinced both are worth being supported.
Come on guys, do your part in the film revival!
Cheers, Jan
I have supported Film Ferrania as well.
I am convinced both are worth being supported.
Come on guys, do your part in the film revival!
Cheers, Jan
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
I wish them good luck but it doesn't seem they would succeed.
However, unlike the Film Ferreria project whose failure would have been sanctionned by irreversible effects, they can restart anytime the project, perhaps with a modester goal if that is possible. $360000 seems to be a lot of money compared to the preservation of the buildings which will mark a beginning of opportunities.
The good thing is before the project, I wasn't even aware of their existence. I shall certainly try some of their 135 products. Does anyone know why the only two films on their website are both out of stock? Also, do they simply repack cinema films into 135 cartridges or are they also involved, say, in improving the coatings? I heard the Kodak 5222, conceived for cinematographic uses, was more easily scratched than commercial still films. Finally, can the current 135 800T be processed in C41?
Just a wild thought, wouldn't it be great if Kodak Alaris, released from the divine vision and the brilliant management of Mr. Antonio Perez and al., could use the same way to bring back, perhaps only in small batches, some of their discontinued films? I miss both the HIE and the Kodachrome very, very much...
However, unlike the Film Ferreria project whose failure would have been sanctionned by irreversible effects, they can restart anytime the project, perhaps with a modester goal if that is possible. $360000 seems to be a lot of money compared to the preservation of the buildings which will mark a beginning of opportunities.
The good thing is before the project, I wasn't even aware of their existence. I shall certainly try some of their 135 products. Does anyone know why the only two films on their website are both out of stock? Also, do they simply repack cinema films into 135 cartridges or are they also involved, say, in improving the coatings? I heard the Kodak 5222, conceived for cinematographic uses, was more easily scratched than commercial still films. Finally, can the current 135 800T be processed in C41?
Just a wild thought, wouldn't it be great if Kodak Alaris, released from the divine vision and the brilliant management of Mr. Antonio Perez and al., could use the same way to bring back, perhaps only in small batches, some of their discontinued films? I miss both the HIE and the Kodachrome very, very much...
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
"Pride only hurts, it never helps, f*ck pride!"
slidesandthecity
Established
As far as I know - which is not that much, tbh - they buy Kodak cine film, remove a layer on the backside of the film to make it compatible with standard C41 chemistry and then load it into 135 cartridges.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
i grabbed a few rolls of their B&W 35mm film CineStill BW XX, shot it at 800 ISO and liked it, and going to try the second roll at 200.
marquée reflection at night:
marquée reflection at night:
Texsport
Well-known
I've pledged support of both as well, and am considering an addition contribution.
Texsport
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
I signed on to the kickstarted also. I think their goal is ambitious, but it is great for there to be another fast film option in 120.
It may be doable to get 35mm cine film on big spools and home develop. For 120 film getting hold of 70mm film, cutting it down and respelling it is just not realistic.
It may be doable to get 35mm cine film on big spools and home develop. For 120 film getting hold of 70mm film, cutting it down and respelling it is just not realistic.
Texsport
Well-known
This project is about to run out of time - sadly!
Texsport
Texsport
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Sadly, I don't think it will make it...
1,084
Backers
$108,771
pledged of $360,000 goal
7
days to go
...Mike
1,084
Backers
$108,771
pledged of $360,000 goal
7
days to go
...Mike
Fernando2
Well-known
I think they set too high a target; expecially since it's a very peculiar film (only 800iso, only 120, only Tungsten-balanced).
And frankly, $360'000 is a lot of money when you are basically wiping and repackaging Kodak cine film.
I'm sad they are not making it, though.
Fernando
And frankly, $360'000 is a lot of money when you are basically wiping and repackaging Kodak cine film.
I'm sad they are not making it, though.
Fernando
Tijmendal
Young photog
The thing is, they have to buy a masterroll, which probably runs that much. I bet they would've set their mark a lot lower if they could have.
europanorama
Well-known
using an developping 70mm film is easy. use 70mm back. develop in jobo 2500-system using additional part of reel to hold extended 120/220-reel in position. also working with new paterson-tank-system.
or cut down 70mm to 120 for lab. someone in usa can deliver affordable china-produced slitters of almost any size. one of them is cutting down one end of perforated 70mm film to avoid cutting perforations inbetween. That could lead to troubles in machines.