[gofour3]

I find CineStill 50D has more of a "movie film" look like Kodachrome, than Portra 160.

If shot in certain lighting conditions the results of the 50D resemble Kodachrome. (See my shot above) Portra 160 has more of a "modern" look to it.

I will have to try the 800T CineStill some day, but for now 50D is my favorite colour negative film. (I still shoot 90% of my colour 35mm work as slide film which I greatly prefer)

Phil.

[Xmas]

I guess CineStill has a hard time to explain, why they want $360k just to modify existing Kodak film while Ferrania asked for $110000 less to produce new film from scratch in four different formats.

I'd just use Portra 800 and give it a blue tint in post

Ferranni are re-engineering a coating machine and coating process for films they were making a decade ago cine still were starting from scratch, apples and oranges.

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 10:15 AM ----------

I've looked at the website, but the details seem vague.

So it's an 800asa Tungsten balanced 35mm film, I got that bit.

But it keeps mentioning Xpro and C41?

is it a positive E6 (or some other process) film that they recommend to cross process in C41 chems? or is it a natural C41 negative film that may be processed in E6 if you wish?



It always throws me when film manufacturers label things as "cross process" since to me cross processing is nothing to do with the film, and all to do with what chemicals you decide to dunk it in.



Basically, say one were to use this in Tungsten light, exposed at 800asa, and then developed in C41 chemicals.
Would you get a normal balanced negative? or would you get a colour shifted, cross processed looking, positive?

You could process it in E6 but it is a masked colour negative so projecting it would be difficult...

It is ECN-2 and normally gets a different colour developer than C41, and is processed to a different gamma to contact print on negative projection or for secondary copies.

After you push the white balance button or filter for a grey card any problem may be vestigial and be in highlights and shadows. Only some people will see the problems.

Highlights will bloom more without the REMJET, c41 mini lab machines would get indigestion with REMJET.

[Painter]

I've shot a few rolls of Cinestill now. What sets it apart for me is the lack of the anti halation layer.

Cinestill | Wallace Koopmans Artlog

I really like using it with mixed lighting
http://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CanonA-1_Cinestill800T_Feb2015_037.jpg

[klaus123]

Hi


I know it is an old thread, but it is the closest I coud find to my topic.

I got some rolles 120 film from the INIDGO crowd fouding project and recently (with some delay) i used my 1st roll in my 6x7. In general pictures look nice but in all shots i found red light marks in dark areas.


Does anybody have an idea where this comes from? Failures in the film, xray-marks, failure in the lab? I am affaid the other rolls will show the same when I use them.

More pictures at Dies & Das / CineStillFilm 800T | Klaus-macht-Bilder.de .. mainly 135 shots

[ctrout]

Looks to me like static discharge from using a fast autowinder or motor drive.

[gofour3]

Does anybody have an idea where this comes from? Failures in the film, xray-marks, failure in the lab? I am affaid the other rolls will show the same when I use them.

Take a read of this "Worst Enemies" blog on the CineStill web site, your issue is similar to one listed:

Film?s Worst Enemies (7 common film issues) ? CineStill Film

Phil.

[klaus123]

Thank you Phil - it looks most similar to issue #3 (Static discharge) but this im my view could not explain the repeating pattern in diffrent shots

[nickthetasmaniac]

I ran a roll through a while ago. Enjoyed it enough but haven't got around to shooting it again.

M2, 50mm Summilux V2 and 800T