The preferred method of removing remjet is with an air knife. As it has less risk of damaging the film.
The point of removing remjet before spooling is so people can process it in transport C-41 machines, such as the frontier.
Regardless of stability, Portra 400 has been an all rounder better performer in C-41 than 5219 500T. 5230 500T should be than 5219 im general but Portra will be the best.
Then there is the colour rendition and skin tones of Portra to boot.
I would rather people buy more Portra, as I think this would be the biggest shame of any product to lose, period.
I also think Eterna Vivid 500T would be the better ECN-2 film for high speed and scanning. Then there is also Reala 500D. These are available from Taobao pre spooled for those interested. Labs in China have been doing the ECN-2 for stills thing for a while.
These films also suffer from high intensity reciprocity failure iirc, which may pose problems in colour rendition for shooters who mixed available light with flash.
Im also unaware if 5219 has an antihalation layer in addition to the remjet layer (as itd be rendundancy in normal usage).
Which would be an issue for having it removed by alkali treatment prior to exposure. The other thing is introducing more impurities to the emulsion prior to exposure. It is preferential to do it post exposure.
If I am correct, these are the guys who have somehow achieved outstanding results shooting Vision3 500T at ISO 3200. I have not been able to replicate their success. I have shot at 1600 and got useable negatives, but thin and very grainy. My results shooting Portra 400 at 1600 were far superior in terms both of color and grain. My guess is that I would not in future push 500T beyond ISO 800 or 1000, making me somewhat skeptical of their claims - perhaps they used modified chemistry or longer than published developing times. At ISO 1000, I had better results with Eterna Vivid 500T than with the Vision3 stock, but Portra was clearly the winner - in a league of its own. While I can roll my own movie stock (and process myself) for a lot less cost than the Portra (by buying short end re-cans), Portra is I think a bit cheaper than what these guys are asking for their adapted Vision3 500T stock. And while I'm at it, in my ISO 1600 tests, even Kodak Ultramax 800 out-performed the Vision3 500T.
IIRC 'The Wright Brothers' were affiliated and involved with the ecn-2.com project, I still have the screenshots of our discussions because of what happened. I don't know if they had a falling out or whatever (with the IAP guy), but if they are not leaving people stranded essentially, then that's only a good thing.
My results typically mirrored newcan1's. Meant to say above 5230 -should- be a little better than 5219 imo. Was sending from phone.
on the FB group "Film shooters" headed up by the Wright Brothers(yes, they mention the unfortunate ECN-2 debacle there), they posted(and have allowed me to re-post) some screenshots of 100% crops of some recent tests of their 500T "C-41 X-Pro" tests.
These are all PROCESSED "NORMAL". Even the ISO 1600 one has been processed "normal"(as if it was rated for iso 500). Scans have just been adjusted to bring levels up to the same as the other speeds.
***PLEASE REMEMBER, THESE PHOTOS ARE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS/CINEFILMSTILL/BWRIGHT PHOTO, etc. and are NOT to be used without direct permission FROM THEM.***
I have been granted permission from them to re-post here and elsewhere I discuss this topic(currently only here):
First off I want to thank Daniel and others for trying to support us in our effort to make this alternative film available without rem-jet for all those who have encouraged us to do so. Daniel made us aware of this thread. We were not planning on running from forum to forum to promote this, because our goal is not to market it. We are doing this primarily for ourselves, but hopefully many others can find it to be a useful tool in their belt as well. We are excited to hear others experience and critique, so long as it is constructive concerns rather than destructive or pedantic phobia.
I think we need to clarify a few things....
First off, lets talk about the elephant in the room. There seems to be some misconceptions being asserted. Athiril, we again apologize for any conflict we have had with you and honestly would prefer not to relive any of it. You have always seemed a self-informed and honestly determined fellow, exerting your effort of experimentation to contribute towards the film community. Even though, in the past we have seriously rubbed each other the wrong way, we commend you for your desire for discovery. Life is far too short for enemies. Especially on the internet. We do not wish to deliberate each other's private conduct.
In regards to our relationship towards ECN-2.com... We have no connection whatsoever with their business practices, Facebook group "Film is Fun" (which apparently we have been accused of running), or the business' web page. The host of IAPR, S.S., interviewed us on his show and we become friends. We spoke with him in length about our studies and experience woking with ECN-2 films, though our disinterest in ever starting a lab. Eventually he approached us about his goal, so we offered advise and allowed him to use our tests on his site, because what he was attempting to accomplish seemed valuable to the film community. Regretfully, his business practices did his company in, but through the process we interceded on behalf of several colleagues to get their ecn-2 processed film and scans, with the help of a great lab. (Richard Photo Lab provided free scans for abandoned customers.) It was extremely disappointing and made us realize that having only one lab capable of providing processing for this film was a terrible thing in the end for film shooters. Sad story. :-(
This led us to begin our research and testing which resulted in our Patent-Pending process we call "premoval". That is the Cinestill film which we have developed and is now in final Beta testing before release. We do not claim to be Photo Engineers or masters or saviors or alchemists... Just guys that can't help themselves in seeing what could be done. Cinestill film is no replacement for Portra 400 or Vision 3 film for motion picture use. It is a viable alternative process film for those who wish to explore it.
Now concerning the questions about the stability and quality of this film processed in C-41 we can speak to the latter exhaustively. We love it! I could post some samples of our results from our workflow as well. It is true that we have no way of knowing the archival qualities of this film in C-41 compared to ECN-2 chemistry, but we have film that had been processed 3 years ago in C-41 and it still looks perfect today (rescanned a couple weeks ago). All I can say is that it is the only high speed capable tungsten balanced film on the market today and scans wonderfully. And if you'd prefer, you can always process it in ECN-2 chemistry as mentioned, without having to remove rem-jet (with a mechanical water jet or scrubber rack as recommended in the industry).
So please do not buy our film if you have any reservations at all. If you love Portra please keep shooting it! We don't want to argue or mislead anyone here. It is what it is and is entirely up to you. We like it. We have been shooting 500T in 33' lengths and processing it in ECN-2 at the major labs in Hollywood for quite some time, but cannot wait to shoot this stuff in our rangefinder! Peace to all and we wish you a pleasant Holliday season.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks Dan for sharing our recent test.
Here are some samples of 5219 in ECN-2 standard macine process vs New Portra 400:
Sorry I thought you were involved with that website/business.
Vision3 ECN-2 films still need stabiliser iirc (esp for CD-4 xpro), best stability in C-41 would be had with Stabiliser III in the final rinse, which is still compatible with frontier processor and regular C-41 films
Flextight 949 scan of 5219 500T through C-41 that I was mucking around with the other week.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6dzq64augqxpoh4 (warning 49mb jpeg)
Last edited by Athiril; 12-03-2012 at 08:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
This is all very interesting. As I have indicated, I have had no luck with 5219 shot above 1600 ISO, and the only with push processing in ECN-2. Maybe I'll try chemical remjet removal followed by C-41 just for the heck of it, and see what happens. It would be nice to be able to replicate the results shown here.
Athiril (or anybody), is 5230 a more recent product introduction than 5219? I didn't even know it existed.
Originally Posted by Athiril
I also did my tests on Vision2 (5218), at 1600 the negatives were a bit thinner than the 5219 but the results were very similar. So I think that all of these stocks keep fairly well if properly stored.
I suspect they may be useable at higher speeds for scanning than they would be useable for analog printing.