New CineStill 120 Indiegogo Campaign

Kodak Alaris covers the consumer still film production. Eastman Kodak cover cinema film production. The two companies are separate.

I've brought this up before. Buying from eastman takes money away from alaris. When alaris starts hiking prices and slashing emulsions a la fuji don't come crying home.
 
Short ends ? !
The 120 rolls couldn't be made from
cine rolls, or short ends.
If it was, you would have the 65mm sprockets on the image of
your film.

Regarding price, for the 135 format it is certainly much much cheaper
to buy your own short ends, but with the small inconvenience of DIY
ramjet removal.

Homemade ECN-2 chemicals are very easy to mix up from scratch
and quite cheap.
As with C41 temperature stability is very important.

I regularly shoot and home ECN-2 develope 250D & 500T, they are great
stocks, and for me the only affordable way to shoot colour film.

-TC
 
tonyc said:
Short ends ? !
The 120 rolls couldn't be made from
cine rolls, or short ends.
If it was, you would have the 65mm sprockets on the image of
your film.
Click to expand...

Most of the beta test shots I've seen do have the sprocket holes. I suspect the holes are being cropped on some images that are posted.
 
Justin Smith said:
Most of the beta test shots I've seen do have the sprocket holes. I suspect the holes are being cropped on some images that are posted.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
I think they are testing with 65mm Perf stock, and then when they have
enough kickstarter money they can order a master roll from Kodak.

Also Nick & Trick in the UK have been supplying this stock cut down to
120 size ( curtesy of M.I. 4 shooting in 65mm in UK studios = cheap short ends )

-TC
 
Everyone complains about film prices, yet they buy $15 rolls of film that don't exist no problem... oh, and collectible stickers?
 
tonyc said:
Short ends ? !
The 120 rolls couldn't be made from
cine rolls, or short ends.
If it was, you would have the 65mm sprockets on the image of
your film.

Regarding price, for the 135 format it is certainly much much cheaper
to buy your own short ends, but with the small inconvenience of DIY
ramjet removal.

Homemade ECN-2 chemicals are very easy to mix up from scratch
and quite cheap.
As with C41 temperature stability is very important.

I regularly shoot and home ECN-2 develope 250D & 500T, they are great
stocks, and for me the only affordable way to shoot colour film.

-TC
Click to expand...

I was referring to the 35mm, which would be short ends. Their prices for the 35mm are pricey considering 500T short ends can be had for a song. You can get fresh 400' cans for under $100 regularly these days as well.

I don't know how they're doing the 120. I've got some 5213 and 5219 short ends in 65mm and unless I'm horribly mistaken the sprockets would be in frame were they loaded into a 120 camera.

I'm guessing their beta rolls have perfs and that after a successful indiegogo campaign they plan on buying a master.

The only other possibility is maybe they got some 2383 but I highly doubt that would provide good results.

I've got a ton of 5213 and 5219, out of curiosity when you develop yours do you remove the remjet prior to exposing or prior to developing? I've never done C41 processing or ECN2 at home and feel bad having all these thousands of feet going to waste.
 
What about the normal day light film (50 ISO I think)? Yesterday I ordered one in 135mm.. is it great too or did I make a mistake and should buy 800 ISO tungsten stuff and use filters?
 
santino said:
What about the normal day light film (50 ISO I think)? Yesterday I ordered one in 135mm.. is it great too or did I make a mistake and should buy 800 ISO tungsten stuff and use filters?
Click to expand...

Whether you like the look is a matter of taste. The Cinestill will produce halos around point light sources and a bit of a softer look since the anti-halation backing is removed. For my taste (and wallet), Ektar 100 is the way to go, that is when I'm not shooting slides.
 
For the Cinestill 800T in 120, the beta rolls are produced from 65mm motion picture stock (which has perforations obviously) but the final product will be produced from a special order film with no perforations.
 
santino said:
What about the normal day light film (50 ISO I think)? Yesterday I ordered one in 135mm.. is it great too or did I make a mistake and should buy 800 ISO tungsten stuff and use filters?
Click to expand...

Of course it's very personal taste, I like the 50 iso fil because of the colors palette.

robert

med_U3692I1441095904.SEQ.0.jpg
 
bluesun267
Indeed the only downside of the Cinestill product [apart from price] is that without the ramjet backing, there will be some pretty retro
halos on any point source highlights, which might not be everyones taste.

Mephiloco said:
I've got a ton of 5213 and 5219, out of curiosity when you develop yours do you remove the remjet prior to exposing or prior to developing? I've never done C41 processing or ECN2 at home and feel bad having all these thousands of feet going to waste.
Click to expand...

I use the Kodak ECN-2 Prebath solution [£10 for 20L !! a few years ago] but you can make it up, it is a very basic formula. [ Borax, Sodium Sulfate, & Sodium Hydroxide ]

Soak film for 2min.
Dump.
Fill with fresh water, and shake the tank vertically, very, very
vigorously.
This washes off 99% of the ramjet.
Then after Dev, Bleach, Fix, Stabilise, I use a stablise solution soaked
lint free cloth wiped down the film a couple of times to take
off any remaining particles of ramjet.

Works a treat.

santino said:
What about the normal day light film (50 ISO I think)? Yesterday I ordered one in 135mm.. is it great too or did I make a mistake and should buy 800 ISO tungsten stuff and use filters?
Click to expand...

The Kodak 50D stock is amazing, almost zero grain.
Like shooting on slide but with a proper dynamic range.

PS someone should start a "Shot on Kodak Vision3" thread !

-TC
 
It certainly has a unique look. Is it fog or the above mentioned halos (from the sun) in the picture? I think I'm going to like it, the colors look very "filmish".

BTW. is it still possible to develop Kodachrome? I still have three rolls of Kodachrome 64 in the fridge (back in the days I used to send it to Kodak in Lausanne).

robert blu said:
Of course it's very personal taste, I like the 50 iso fil because of the colors palette.

robert

med_U3692I1441095904.SEQ.0.jpg
Click to expand...
 
@santino: it's early morning fog.

These ar colors from a few hours later

med_U3692I1436097095.SEQ.1.jpg


The red halo (strong!) I found in the 800 iso film (of course 135) like in this photo, personally it doesn't disturb me!

med_U3692I1436097386.SEQ.0.jpg
 
santino said:
I think I'm going to like it, the colors look very "filmish".
Click to expand...

For some reason I find this amusing. Film looking like film.
;)

Only way to develop Kodachrome now is as B&W images. The prices I have seen (maybe there are cheaper options) is $60 a roll! I think the place was filmrescue.com
I have 4 rolls in the fridge, I think they are going to remain there...
 
@huss:
I meant "motion-picturesque", off course :) - stupid German-English mix up.

@robert:
I see, the reds don't bother me seither - I actually like it. Thanks for demonstration.
 
CineStill 50D is advertised as the "finest grained color film available"

CineStill 800T can be shot at 400 or 500 with 85B filter in daylight - particularly for portraits, it is very nice.

After 8 days 80% funded for 800T 120 film production, 65% funded for 800T 4X5 sheet film, and 50% funded for 50D 120 film production.

Texsport
 
Texsport said:
CineStill 50D is advertised as the "finest grained color film available"
...
After 8 days 80% funded for 800T 120 film production, 65% funded for 800T 4X5 sheet film, and 50% funded for 50D 120 film production.
Click to expand...

Is there a specific campaign for each type of film? I backed the 800T/120 but I can not find a perk getting 50D only... I would love to have a few rolls of that also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom