Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,767   Posts: 1,484,169   Online: 886
      
Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2

    New fast (800) Tungsten balanced film called Cinestill

    Well with the pushable to 1600 (or maybe faster) Provia 400x discontinued and pushable tungsten balanced film gone for a while and 800 speed C41 being to slow and to grainy to use with a blue filter it would seem that my prayers have been answered. http://www.cinestillfilm.com/ It looks good, I have been told I will be getting some free rolls to test for my web page, I just hope it's as good as it looks.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1172805_10201322249313768_432827168_o.jpg 
Views:	169 
Size:	58.2 KB 
ID:	74060

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1111003888-R1-E003.jpg 
Views:	153 
Size:	82.7 KB 
ID:	74061

    I'm guessing this has been taken with a warm up filter.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	giacanali3008.jpg 
Views:	179 
Size:	774.6 KB 
ID:	74062

  2. #2
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    382
    It has been available for some time. It is a Kodak cine film with remjet removed.
    In Germany, Fotoimpex stocks it. See here: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum249/...le-europe.html
    My cameras:
    Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F50, F55, F60, 2xF601, F65, 3xF75, F801, 2x F801S, F80, F90, 4xF90X, EL2, FE, FM, 2xFG, FG-20, 3xEM

  3. #3
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,479
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk View Post
    ...and 800 speed C41 being too slow and to grainy to use with a blue filter...
    That modified film is rated by Kodak as EI 320 with tungsten lighting. A ISO 800 C-41 daylight film would yield EI 200 at Tungsten lighting.

    Is that such a difference to call it too slow?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    Yeah, 200 is a bit slow under dim tungsten lighting. The reason why I don't use ISO 800 colour film is because I don't want it to be daylight balanced in the first place at that speed.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    301
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    That modified film is rated by Kodak as EI 320 with tungsten lighting. A ISO 800 C-41 daylight film would yield EI 200 at Tungsten lighting.
    It's Vision 500T which is rated at ISO 500 in tungsten and 320 in daylight. As it's designed to be processed in ECN-2 chemistry, I don't know enough to presume what the best EI would be for processing in C-41...

  6. #6
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Yep obviously Vision3 500T - probably THE pinnacle of color negative. Avoid the middle man and do it yourself. Remjet is easy.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    Why don't Kodak sell this like this themselves?

  8. #8
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,479
    Just leaving out the rem-jet layer may not work, as it may serve as antihalation layer too.

    (Sorry for the confusion above... I mixed up thhings.)

  9. #9
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,723
    Images
    65
    If it is indeed a cine film, and if it is processed in C41, then it will not yield satisfactory results. Only the ECN process is suitable. In addition, the dyes will not be completely stable.

    You will have to judge for yourselves with a critical eye if done in C41. If done in the ECN process, the results will likely be quite good if not excellent.

    If the remjet has been pre-removed, then results will be poor to ghastly due to halation. If you do it yourself, it is messy and leaves some rem-jet. If the lab does it, well then it depends.

    PE

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    301
    Images
    1
    They're quite upfront about it being 500T (5219) in their faq.

    PE, wouldn't the archival stability be roughly the same as cross processed E6 film as, if I recall correctly, it and ECN-2 both use CD3. Or is it more complicated than that?

    The remjet is pre-removed but the sample pictures don't look too bad (or obviously affected by halation). They do recommend avoiding scenes that are backlit or include strong point light sources.

Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin