Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
Your reference of films without rem-jet, which shows the structure, is for print films. AFAIK, ECN, the camera film, is still made with rem-jet.

Years ago I played with the Camera Negative at home and the rem-jet gets on everything.

The only point I was trying to add to this discussion is that just taking the Camera film and buffing off the rem-jet will leave you with a film with no antihalo. I brought up the print films as where they did stop using remjet they had to come up with a new system UNDER the emulsion layer to substitute.

I appreciate that these guys have done a lot of work to come up with a way to safely use the Vision stock for those who don't have access to a friendly Movie lab. (the big movie processors typically run at 100 FPM or so and so it is a bit tricky to splice in a 5 foot section of film to help out a still Photographer) BUT I don't think the results will be as good without the rem-jet at time of exposure. I am guessing they figure that the C-41 run will give them a bit of a push to up the contrast and at the same time justify their 800 rating to a 500 film that many Movie pros like to rate at 320.

I get the terible feeling taht this sounds like I am arguing, and I really am not.