Topic: Cinestill

[tkmedia]

any one tried cinestill film? It is Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 spooled in 135 with the rem-jet removed. It's being distributed by a few biggies like foto impex and freestyle.

[Terry]

Thanks!  Must get me some...5219 is gorgeous stuff.

[Yglotte]

Looks great, I just want to see more results with it 

[Urban Hafner]

I will definitely try it once I run out of film. It's certainly not cheap, but neither is Fuji Superia 1600 and this film might be even better.

[Nigel]

The Film Photography Project are selling 35mm rolls of Kodak Double-X which sounds interesting, they say:

Black-and-white negative films from Kodak have been a creative story telling tool for decades. EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 / 7222 has the subtleties in tone scale that you’ve come to expect, and now it’s been optimized for physical performance. Features include a scratch-resistance backing and a process-surviving top layer, allowing:

    Better camera transport
    Reduced noise in the camera
    Improved raw stock keeping
    Decreased risk of ferrotyping

Designed for general production use outdoors and in the studio, in dim light, and anywhere you need greater depth of field without increased illumination. This high-speed camera negative film has excellent image-structure characteristics.

http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/35mm-fpp-cinema-xx-bw-single-roll

[Terry]

5222 may actually be more interesting than 5219 as a still film.  I seem to recall from a past thread that they're making this stuff without the remjet layer now.  And I'm sure you can process it in a range of b&w developers. 

It occurs to me that the gorgeousness of 5219 may have something to do with the different chemistry the motion picture labs use.  I looked up 'cinestill' on Freestyle's site and saw to my dismay that they're selling it as a cross-process stock in c-41 which makes me wonder what the results might be.  In any case, they were sold out!

[Urban Hafner]

Sold out you say? I might need to order some. I assume some might still be left here in Europe.

[Owlsflight]

Not to veer too far from the original subject, but funny you guys mentioned the Double X.  I just recently stumbled upon it searching the bay for some cheap film. I had heard about it, but never really fully looked into it. Looks like if it's processed right, and there seems to be a lot of tricks associated with that, it comes out beautiful. There's a photo pool of that film on flickr with a lot of great examples. http://www.flickr.com/groups/656147@N20/pool/with/7166844593/#photo_7166844593

I bought a roll and it should be in the mailbox soon enough. 

[irv_b]

One of the blogs I occasionally read has this info which you may find helpful
http://filmus-monochromus.tumblr.com/
http://www.project-double-x.org/index.html

[tkmedia]

The Film Photography Project are selling 35mm rolls of Kodak Double-X which sounds interesting, they say:

I was giving Mike suggestions a bit back on bulk cine film re-spooling and they sent me a few before they started selling them. Maybe they will start getting orwo 74 and 54 films.


fpp repurposed film by Studioesper, on Flickr

[Urban Hafner]

I got all excited about Cinestill and now I wonder what the difference is to the new Portra 400. Is it just that it's Tungsten balanced? Or also that it has even more latitude? At almost 9€ per roll I'd like to hear some arguments ...

[hookstrapped]

I got all excited about Cinestill and now I wonder what the difference is to the new Portra 400. Is it just that it's Tungsten balanced? Or also that it has even more latitude? At almost 9€ per roll I'd like to hear some arguments ...

According to the Kodak cine product description videos, you're buying more dynamic range, specifically low grain shadows and better shadow and highlight definition.  I like Portra 400 a lot, but this seems a lot better in regard to those common low light issues.  I'm going to give it a try when it becomes available again.

[Urban Hafner]

OK, thanks. I'll give it a try then. Might be handy for the Exa as it doesn't offer that much control ...

Also, if you're interested in shooting it in daylight, you will need a Wratten 85B filter. It is available from almost all filter manufacturers, but you might be more successful when you search for "KR 15" (not not confuse with "KB 15") instead of "85B".

[Terry]

Urban,
I've shot a bunch of this in motion picture cameras and can vouch for Kodak's latitude claims--it gives something on the order of 16 stops of latitude and the resolution is gobsmackingly good.  BUT, this is what you get when it's developed in ECN-2.  It may not like C-41 so well.

[Erik]

I've been shooting 7207 (250D) and 7219 (500T) on 16mm for the past month on a feature, and have been astonished by the latitude of 500T -- for night shooting the light meter reads fstop 0, but then in telecine, the image is there and as good as my eye saw at the time.
We're using an Aaton LTR, and a Bolex Rex4 for pickups/sneaky shots, and we'll definitely have a few 100' Bolex spools left after shooting is through.... I'm glad this thread came up, because I was thinking about this the other night in terms of stills --

Has anyone ever tried using a Bolex as a still camera? Granting the initial investment is large (37.50 per 100' + processing at .13 per foot + telecine ~100.00)  and there's a leap of faith putting all that material on one roll -- but -- it's around 4000 still frames per roll. And the look is certainly distinctive.

I've pulled frame grabs from telecine on other projects, (TriX on Super8 film, for example) and they generally look fantastic. Drawbacks beyond the investment also include the ungainliness of a cine camera-as-still camera, and, in the case of the Bolex, the horrible dim viewfinder. There is a parallax option, but I haven't tried it.

[Francois]

Well, this is the original action sampler!

I know Minolta made some nice Super-8 cameras that had a stop motion feature. That could be used to capture stills... the only problem is that you probably have enough on a single cassette to shoot all year before developing!

But on the other hand, it's probably the cheapest way to use film...

[Erik]

I should have mentioned that the Bolex does have a fine single-frame option. A favorite of animators for eons.

[Terry]

I recall the Switars were fine lenses too.  As you say, the only bad thing about them was the reflex prism 'light-robber'.

[Francois]

Just imagine having 3,600 images per roll!

And I thought a roll of 36 exposures in a half frame camera was excruciatingly long!

[Thom Stone]

just discovered this the other day and was about to start a new topic on it but found this. I am familiar with the idea of shooting ECN-2 and xpro to c-41.. did a lot of research as I have a thousand or so feet of 16mm ecn-2 mixed stocks in the fridge ready for shooting music vids and wanted to soup it myself at home with a c-41 kit... infact there is even a flickr group somewhere.

yeah here it is
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ecn2/

infact reading the discussions it looks like a solution of baking soda and 100degree (f, i presume) water can easily remove the remjet backing... might have to try this.

annnnyywaay... just wanted to know what people thought of cinestill stuff? the latitude being so wide I thought it might allow me to leave my digital at home when shooting gigs. I would dearly love to shoot gigs on film but am finding that the shitty low lit venues i shoot in are pretty much no match for any film :-( even portra. gigs are pretty much all im shooting at the mo apart from the odd pack of peel apart at parties or the odd model shoot. this saddens me greatly as more than anything i have nothing to share with you guys.

[Francois]

Well, I know Terry does a lot of Kodak Vision. So he probably is the one who knows the stuff best.

[hookstrapped]

I posted this in the weekend thread, but I wanted to get a little discussion on Cinestill re-started.  I really like the results I got, rating it at 1600 (in a Rollei 35S).  I like the grain a lot. Very little chromatic noise.  And I kinda dig the halated (?) bright lights








It also does a nice low contrast job in subdued but not really dark conditions (NSFW!)
http://www.hookstrapped.com/album/cinestill-test#3

[Nasir]

I've shot with Cinestill in Tungsten light and it works as advertised. It certainly has a look all its own. I really like it.

[Indofunk]

Here are mine. I LOVE the colorshift in non-tungsten light, especially nighttime.


Your stereotypical Soho at night in the rain car commercial by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr


Waiting by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr


Barrel aged by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr

(also love cropping the pics 16:9 [except the last one] because cinematic film)

[Indofunk]

also, yes to Peter's observation that it should be shot at 1600. I shot my roll at 800 (box speed) and it was at least a stop overexposed. I'm going to love shooting the next roll at night, that extra stop will give me a lot more shooting opportunities.

[hookstrapped]

Good example of the lack of an anti-halation layer.  I guess it could get to be a bit much but I like it.

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

I'm planning to develop my first roll of Vision2 250D (5205) this week. My can is 400 feet long, so I expect a lot and funny results.

Must remove the remjet first, probably as described here.

[Chalky]

really like both those sets of 'example' shots 

[Francois]

Personally, I like the softness the lack of an AH layer brings.

Here is the Film show's test of the film.
Film Season 2 - Episode 5 - Night Shoot

[hookstrapped]

Personally, I like the softness the lack of an AH layer brings.

Here is the Film show's test of the film.
Film Season 2 - Episode 5 - Night Shoot

Good thing is hipsters are helping keep film alive
Bad thing is having to sift through a lot of hipsterism to get to the subject at hand
Good thing is being able to scroll to the still image samples

[Urban Hafner]

Good thing is hipsters are helping keep film alive
Bad thing is having to sift through a lot of hipsterism to get to the subject at hand
Good thing is being able to scroll to the still image samples

Thanks for that review. I almost started watching it!

[Peter84]

Personally, I like the softness the lack of an AH layer brings.

Here is the Film show's test of the film.
Film Season 2 - Episode 5 - Night Shoot

Good thing is hipsters are helping keep film alive
Bad thing is having to sift through a lot of hipsterism to get to the subject at hand
Good thing is being able to scroll to the still image samples

Well actually as a late twenty-something-er I started my analogue "career" a couple of years ago with lomography (yes hipster stuff I know) using a Holga and some lomo 800 asa MF rolls, and that went on to buying a cheap canon eos 300v. Left the 50D in the cupboard more often and started shooting more and more film, and buying even more film camera's etc, after that came home developing and now I'm here 
So give a hipster a couple of years and they might aproach it more seriously... 

[imagesfrugales]

So give a hipster a couple of years and they might aproach it more seriously... 

Yes, total agreement from an oldschool guy. And didn't the hipsters bring in a huge amount of creative input? So that even a square head like me dared to shoot (and show!) completely blurry pics? You mustn't like it, but the influence of the lomographic society can't be overestimated for generating fresh analogue blood. I wished Kodak, Ilford and Fuji were equally involved in promoting silver based photography, but they do next to nothing. That's a shame.

[thil]

I'm a big fan of Fuji 400H and that is normally my default choice for night time. After seeing the video above a couple of months ago (and as hookstrapped did, scrolling straight to the sample images) I tried Cinestill out and I have to say I like it a lot. Firstcall Photographic are now distributing in the UK (http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/5128/cinestill-xpro-c-41-iso-800-tungsten-13536).

[hookstrapped]

Wow, shot my second roll of Cinestill and I think I'm in love.  Like, up there with my favorite films ever maybe.  Maybe it's the subject matter, but it really does have a cinematic look to my eyes -- the color palette and the grain structure.

All were shot at 1600 and developed normal.  The negs were at least a stop over-exposed, which is how I like 'em.  But that means negs should be fine shot at 3200, though I suspect you might get more chromatic noise (deep blue specks) in the blacks.  At 1600, chromatic noise is a very minor issue.













Satish (Indofunk) trying to count how many beers he's had

[Indofunk]

Answer: ALL OF THEM.

[Indofunk]

New batch shot on my Minotla SR-T 101 with a basically non-functioning meter, so I was guess-metering most of the time. Full set in the photoessay section, but here's the first picture on the roll, which I think has become my favorite:



I love the color palate when shot indoors in non-tungsten lighting, as well as outdoors at night. Outdoors in daylight it's not as striking.

I have 2 more rolls coming my way. I'll load them in my Canonet, which is just back from the shop so the meter better be spot-on!

Oh, as I may have mentioned before I love cropping this film 16:9 to pretend that it's actually a movie still

[Terry]

I've got a few rolls of expired 5219 short ends if anyone wants to try rolling their own cinestill.  Mostly bought in 2009, reasonably fresh when purchased, so only four years out of date (ish).  They've been refrigerated (not frozen) kept at about 45 degrees fahrenheit as long as I've had them.  Shot some motion with some of this stuff a year ago and it turned out quite nice--maybe one stop of exposure compensation.  But I've got no projects on the horizon at the moment and I'd hate to let them go sour in the fridge.