Author Topic: lomo cine200 (Read 5881 times)

Peter84 · « **on:** July 21, 2014, 03:37:04 PM »

Noticed today that lomography launched a cine200 film, would that be like the cine still film but then in 200 speed? Ordered some rolls to see... keep you posted

mcduff · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2014, 04:57:39 PM »

OK, props for them for getting more films out, but why can't they just say what they are doing)

we have found a limited batch of rare cine material that we specially treated, so that it can be used in 35mm film cameras.

I know that they are speaking to a less geekier crowd than places like here or the other forums, but it always pisses me off that they make it sound like they have some 'secret sauce' instead of just saying "Cinematic film has a special layer -- called rem-jet -- that has to be removed before it can be processed in C-41. We do this for you" or whatever in the hell they are doing. Is there something else they can be doing?

It also bugs me that they are selling this film as having an unusual colour pallet and basing this on the fact that it is a cinematic film, and downplaying that it is a Tungsten film and was (likely) mean for ECN-2 processing. OK, I will stop being a "monday-morning grump"

(And note, I have bought some of their weirder films before - like their purple stuff. And those sorts of films can be fun, I just wish they said what they were doing more instead of it always being in "Lomo-marketing-speak.)

Bryan · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2014, 05:29:34 PM »

I wonder if that's Agfachrome RSX-II 200. Wittner in Germany sells it as Wittner Chrome 200D.

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/home.php

Peter84 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2014, 06:24:41 PM »

Quote from: BAC1967 on July 21, 2014, 05:29:34 PM

I wonder if that's Agfachrome RSX-II 200. Wittner in Germany sells it as Wittner Chrome 200D.

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/home.php

Or maybe the kodak vision 200T ?

the looks of the film are probably just so because it's a tungsten balanced film shot in daylight and that's what they call "an authentic cine film"

Terry gave me 200ft of kodak vision 500D to play with (many thanks again) but this is the stuff with rem jet, I haven't gotten past a test roll. After C-41 developing I placed the film in warm water en washed the rem jet of with a very soft sponge, but it's a lot of hassle. But seeing that cine still is about 13 euro a roll and cine200 10 euro....

I've got about 10 empty rolls of 35mm film which I'm gonna load up with it if anyone's interested PM me your adress and I'll send you a roll or two

SLVR · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2014, 06:26:48 PM »

I laughed. With the FPP seemingly already driving the Cinema film bandwagon its funny to see lomo jumping on to capitalize.

mcduff · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2014, 06:50:54 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on July 21, 2014, 06:26:48 PM

I laughed. With the FPP seemingly already driving the Cinema film bandwagon its funny to see lomo jumping on to capitalize.

And I get a laugh out of the differing marketing approach. Comparing Lomo's "don't worry your pretty little head about what we are doing, just be assured it is amazing" to FPP's Mike Raso's "I'm just a guy who likes nothing better than rolling film while watching old B Movies"

Granted, Mike is not magically removing rem-jet, but I like his style. I also like that he sells most of these films in bulk format, if you decide you like it.

SLVR · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:05:14 PM »

I like that mike tells you what the film actually is. It lets us appreciate kodak, fuji, and the like. Lomography's take on it seems to get some weird film and rebrand it. While companies have been doing this for years I still prefer Raso's approach.

Show the film for what it is. It also makes things much easier to find information on these films rather than rebranding them with some obscure name. For example say lomo respooled kodalith and renamed it "lomo fluffy grey punch" or something trendy. If I was having trouble processing lomo fluffy grey punch there won't be much info out there compared to if I just searched kodalith.

Indofunk · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:14:12 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on July 21, 2014, 07:05:14 PM

"lomo fluffy grey punch"

I just preordered 20 rolls

SLVR · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:17:20 PM »

thats too bad! because you know they added hipster tax to it! You're in NYC right? you should know all about hipster tax down there

Indofunk · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2014, 07:36:34 PM »

Oh, all too familiar

I have to pay hipster toll every time I take the L train to Williamsburg. NYC is expensive!!

Francois · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2014, 08:46:24 PM »

Sometimes I wonder if Hipster toll is better in some sense than Redneck toll?

But yeah, there has to be an easy way to remove remjet before processing.
I figure that a simple machine that takes the 1000' spool, drives the film over a slick stainless roller with a high pressure washer shooting the back and then moving the film under an infrared dryer before re-spooling should work and be fairly easy and cheap to build...

SLVR · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2014, 09:05:14 PM »

mcduff and hungrymike know this already but we went to a photo expo last year and I ended up getting caught up with a director for film who was saying that cinema color film will "f*ck up your clutch" in your camera. He said that cinema film is usually thicker because of the remjet backing or that the film base is thicker.

It makes sense in my head that with a thicker film base the diameter of the takeup spool will get bigger faster, thus pulling through more film per advance since the advance would be calibrated for a thinner film base. This in turn will put stress on your main sprocket gear because the takeup will be trying to pull more film in than the gear will normally allow. For some cameras this won't be an issue but I know it would be on any of my leicas.

francois, what do you think?

Bryan · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2014, 09:13:30 PM »

This is from the "Filmshooting Forum" for removing remjet:

Quote

For remjet removal, I suggest you load the lomo spiral (assuming that is how you are processing). Then immerse the film in your remjet softening solution. The kodak ECN prebath is what I use, but use whatever you can get, and if that is just Borax, use that. Let it soften in the prebath for maybe a minute, then in the dark take the spiral out of the prebath and run it under running water for about 2 minutes. This should get rid of much of the remjet. When I process kodachrome using normal ecn prebath, 95 percent of the remjet comes off at this stage.

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24297&p=208749&hilit=remjet#p208749

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2014, 10:18:48 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on July 21, 2014, 09:05:14 PM

mcduff and hungrymike know this already but we went to a photo expo last year and I ended up getting caught up with a director for film who was saying that cinema color film will "f*ck up your clutch" in your camera. He said that cinema film is usually thicker because of the remjet backing or that the film base is thicker.

It makes sense in my head that with a thicker film base the diameter of the takeup spool will get bigger faster, thus pulling through more film per advance since the advance would be calibrated for a thinner film base. This in turn will put stress on your main sprocket gear because the takeup will be trying to pull more film in than the gear will normally allow. For some cameras this won't be an issue but I know it would be on any of my leicas.

francois, what do you think?

I guess it depends more on how many frames are in the can than anything else.
Personally, I doubt that it would damage the advance mechanism if reasonable (24 exp.) rolls are used and you use a reasonable winding technique.
The most that I think would happen is that you can have shorter film advance strokes than with a thin polyester base.
Some people wind their cameras like gorillas and then they wonder why the advance couldn't keep-up.
Thicker base will potentially mean more resistance when winding because of the pressure plate and felt lips on the cassette.
I checked the web but couldn't find anything on the thickness of the base.
Also, I have yet to find a camera that uses an actual clutch system. They use a ratchet which can strip teeth on the drive gear is not properly handled.

mcduff · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2014, 11:51:04 PM »

I have heard more concerns over polyester base films - which are hard to tear, hence will not give in a jam.

And as I have never played with remjet, I too am curious as to its thickness.

Hungry Mike · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2014, 03:26:45 AM »

I've played with remjet on Kodachrome and some of the Kodak Vision 500T (thanks Terry) but neither seemed substantially thicker than any other film I've handled. I'm no expert of course. I recall that conversation you had Tintin and had it in mind recently when I shot the Cinestill in some of my Oly cameras (the Pen FT & OM series). I experienced no issues with winding or advancing the film.

While it irritates me that Lomography refuses to "come clean" about what they are selling, irritates me more that it is nearly $10 Canadian a roll. For all we know it is expired 400 film they suggest we shoot at 200. Though there is only 4000 rolls of it... Damn Lomography appealing to my film hoarding neuroses. Hey if anyone wants to trade some I'd be interested.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2014, 02:29:40 PM »

I haven't checked if it's cheaper to get some Cinestill at Freestyle's....
At least, they tell you clearly what's inside the spool.

mcduff · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2014, 06:50:32 PM »

No the Cinestill is not cheaper -- but like you said, at least they are letting you know what is going on:
"CineStill's rem-jet "Premoval" makes this motion picture ( ECN2) film safe to process in standard C-41 photo lab machines or at home"

Peter84 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2014, 11:05:44 PM »

Film shot, film developed, drying right now, here's what I saw (sorry picture is digital) but it seems that Lomo cine200 is some kind of Fuji film.
It's mirrored but it says Fuji 250 819 013 7866N5... Google doesn't know what to make of it but could it be fuji eterna 250T OR 250D?

Volker · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2014, 11:59:58 PM »

Hi,

maybe this helps: http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/
and from an info on flickr:
805144 Lomography X Tungsten 64 135-36 datum onbekend (=Fuji T64)

Peter84 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2014, 09:18:16 AM »

so here's the results, see for yourself
I think it's quite natural looking not that shifty.... what do you think?

http://

abandonned wheelbarrel par Peter Stoel, op ipernity
http://

sunset boulevard vlissingen par Peter Stoel, op ipernity

jojonas~ · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2014, 09:23:48 AM »

those shots look good by me. maybe a bit low contrast but that could be camera or scan too I guess.

I've shot some kodak vision 2 200T or what it was exactly. no problem with the remjet in shooting (I've used a kiev 4am and lomo lc-a, no traces or anything. removing it was easy enough, just dip it in warm water + a bit of soda and it'll soften up and you can just squegee it off.
haven't had time to scan any of those rolls though... wonder where they are? lol

Francois · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2014, 03:06:30 PM »

Looks good to me too. A bit dark but still pretty much OK.

Here's what Dexter said (http://dexter.pcode.nl/?dx=805144)
805144
manufactured by
Fujifilm

original emulsion
Fujichrome T64 Professional

also sold as
Lomography X Tungsten 64

with 36 exposures

Hungry Mike · « **Reply #23 on:** July 30, 2014, 07:05:05 PM »

I noticed this on the Cinestill Instagram feed in regards to this Lomo Cine200:
http://instagram.com/p/q5wecgLKu0/?modal=true

The particular relevant comment is:

"The Lomo Cine200 used some of the discontinued Fuji 250T. We did scan several comparisons. They used a different method from our Premoval process, and acquired 4000 rolls. I'd just say "Cine200 is a Lomo version of CineStill". ;-) Lower contrast and a bit of color cast in the base. Best to shoot it like an expired film stock, at ISO100 or so."

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** July 30, 2014, 09:02:01 PM »

The color cast can come from the remjet removal process.
There's basically two ways to do this: mechanical or chemical.

The mechanical way would just use a non reactive solvent like water and either pressure or friction.
The chemical way could use Sodium Carbonate and a bit of friction. But that would affect the image. It's not too bad if the chemicals soak evenly in the emulsion.

But If I'd have to choose, I'd use the non-reactive solvent and pressure as it won't make something that gums-up the machinery.

mcduff · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2014, 04:29:28 AM »

A bit OT but related to movie film is Hollywood wanting to help kodak out regarding cine film sales:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2722705