New Cinestill 400D film announced

[MattKing]

designed to tear easier so it doesn't destroy the camera mechanism. When I'm done rewinding a roll I can tear the leader off my with teeth or fingers. I can even fashion a leading foot for loading just by tearing.

The same applies to good old Tri-X

 

[MattKing]

You overlook that
-) only yellow can be added this way. Yieldin thus a colour bias.
-) sensitivity varies between layers. Yielding more colour bias
-) halation takes place. Exposure thus is not added at the right locations

Thus the Cinestill "glow" .

 

[Cholentpot]

The same applies to good old Tri-X

I guess that Tri-X is not on Estar?

 

[Lachlan Young]

That and cinefilm is more conservatively rated.

It's correctly rated - for development in a CD-3 containing developer to a lower CI to match the CI of colour print stock & for exposure that's keyed to protect the highlights. CD-4 is very significantly more active in comparison - and the standard 3m15s is designed to get a C-41 stock to a higher design CI than ECN-2. In the case of the de-remjetted and cross processed Cinestill, the added flare of no anti-hal will both add some effective speed & reduce the contrast a bit too.

 

[MattKing]

I guess that Tri-X is not on Estar?

T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 too.
Same for Plus-X.
Same for Kodak Gold.

 

[Dirb9]

What exactly does the adjustment entail? Are they really doing anything else apart from ordering film without remjet?

I should have clarified better, I think it's highly unlikely Cinestill is doing/having any chemical adjustment to the film (besides the rem-jet removal). As MattKing mentioned, my understanding is that higher EI rating for their is marketing based upon their assumption that people are developing the film in C41 to a different contrast index. In their product page for 800t: "...produces a complimentary contrast curve for optical printing on RA-4 paper when processed in C-41 chemistry..."

 

[Helge]

It's correctly rated - for development in a CD-3 containing developer to a lower CI to match the CI of colour print stock & for exposure that's keyed to protect the highlights. CD-4 is very significantly more active in comparison - and the standard 3m15s is designed to get a C-41 stock to a higher design CI than ECN-2. In the case of the de-remjetted and cross processed Cinestill, the added flare of no anti-hal will both add some effective speed & reduce the contrast a bit too.

So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?
I know it’s flatter, less contrasty for easier printing/scanning. But like lenses, where there is T-stops as a better measure of light throughput than f-stops, film is of rated lower and in exposure index values.
Correct?
There is such a thing as total light sensitivity, that is relatively independent of development. IE how many photons does it take to make a development center.
Not that same as, but related to the concept of quantum efficiency.

 

[Cholentpot]

T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 too.
Same for Plus-X.
Same for Kodak Gold.

They're still making Plus-X?

By the way I have some Aero Plus-X 70mm. Whatever it's coated on is unbreakable.

 

[pbromaghin]

- unless it's just a master roll of Vision 3 250D.

About 5 minutes ago I heard Nico's Photo News say it is exactly this.

 

[MattKing]

So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?
I know it’s flatter, less contrasty for easier printing/scanning. But like lenses, where there is T-stops as a better measure of light throughput than f-stops, film is of rated lower and in exposure index values.
Correct?
There is such a thing as total light sensitivity, that is relatively independent of development. IE how many photons does it take to make a development center.
Not that same as, but related to the concept of quantum efficiency.

This isn't how film speeds work.
They don't report how sensitive to light the film is.
They report the minimum level of light you need in order to achieve a certain level of contrast when developed appropriately.
When the light level is lower, the details on the slide or negative are there, but they are submerged in muck. When the light levels get high enough, the details start to separate out and provide a usable image.
The speed rating is a measure of that point where the image comes out of the muck.
"muck" is, of course, not a technical term

 

[Helge]

This isn't how film speeds work.
They don't report how sensitive to light the film is.
They report the minimum level of light you need in order to achieve a certain level of contrast when developed appropriately.
When the light level is lower, the details on the slide or negative are there, but they are submerged in muck. When the light levels get high enough, the details start to separate out and provide a usable image.
The speed rating is a measure of that point where the image comes out of the muck.
"muck" is, of course, not a technical term

Isn’t that density and not contrast?

 

[MattKing]

They're still making Plus-X?

By the way I have some Aero Plus-X 70mm. Whatever it's coated on is unbreakable.

No Plus-X is made any more, sadly. I referenced it, because I have a couple of rolls left, it was a main film for me for years, and I have intentionally torn of the leader on many, many rolls over many years.
And the Aero films must be dimensionally stable, so they are never on acetate.
The sharing of names "Plus-X" is unfortunately confusing, but think how long the sentence would have been if I had tried to be more specific!

 

[MattKing]

Isn’t that density and not contrast?

It is both. Only Zone System practitioners use density alone. That is part of the reason that, by definition, a Zone System speed is 2/3 of a stop slower right from the starting point.
ISO/ASA/DIN readings use both density and contrast, and are a much more predictable way to measure the response of the film to photographic requirements, because they result in better straight prints.
We don't "see" density. We "see" contrast.

 

[Cholentpot]

No Plus-X is made any more, sadly. I referenced it, because I have a couple of rolls left, it was a main film for me for years, and I have intentionally torn of the leader on many, many rolls over many years.
And the Aero films must be dimensionally stable, so they are never on acetate.
The sharing of names "Plus-X" is unfortunately confusing, but think how long the sentence would have been if I had tried to be more specific!

I learned photography using Plus-X. I have a few rolls left in the freezer.

FYI, the Aero does not have anti-halation. It makes for some really interesting photos.

 

[Helge]

It is both. Only Zone System practitioners use density alone. That is part of the reason that, by definition, a Zone System speed is 2/3 of a stop slower right from the starting point.
ISO/ASA/DIN readings use both density and contrast, and are a much more predictable way to measure the response of the film to photographic requirements, because they result in better straight prints.
We don't "see" density. We "see" contrast.

Well to be precise, the human sensor system is very attuned to high frequency changes. Hence why various kinds of compression work. Low frequencies can be compressed (and predicted) extensively, compressing the whole range.
That doesn’t mean that we can’t sense them though. We can feel something is off. Especially in A, B comparisons.

Contrast and density are not completely separable.
At very low densities contrast is compressed/flattened and viseversa, at very high densities, contrast will have to be high for the exposure to use the range.

Point being, when you print onto intermediate or print film you need both density and low contrast, or your shadows and highlights are not there. Same as with still.

That requires real physical light sensitivity not “just” correct contrast.

Of course with cine film the shutter is mostly the same (unless you want motion blur of staccato movement), so it’s only lens through put that matters. That might make a difference to exposure and how it’s easy to think of things for the DP and editor.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Pretty sure cine Plus-X ("Plus-X Negative") is still available, at least in 16mm and 8mm formats. Not the same as the still Plus-X we all used to use, again, just shared name (originally based mainly on the film speed).

 

[Cholentpot]

Pretty sure cine Plus-X ("Plus-X Negative") is still available, at least in 16mm and 8mm formats. Not the same as the still Plus-X we all used to use, again, just shared name (originally based mainly on the film speed).

I have some in 16mm. It's not the same film, just shares the name.

 

[film_man]

Looks like they hit the 35mm and 120 target already. Hopefully they get to make some 4x5 too.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most of the Cinestill pictures I've seen by amateurs are blah. No contrast, no pop. Maybe that's the post-processing. But photographers seem to like the blah look. I've also seen this blah look in video. I don;t get it.

 

[OrientPoint]

Pretty sure cine Plus-X ("Plus-X Negative") is still available, at least in 16mm and 8mm formats. Not the same as the still Plus-X we all used to use, again, just shared name (originally based mainly on the film speed).

No, Plus-X is long gone now, the Cine version included.

 

[film_man]

Most of the Cinestill pictures I've seen by amateurs are blah. No contrast, no pop. Maybe that's the post-processing. But photographers seem to like the blah look. I've also seen this blah look in video. I don;t get it.

Most pictures with any film or digital are blah.

 

[Moose22]

Most of the Cinestill pictures I've seen by amateurs are blah. No contrast, no pop. Maybe that's the post-processing. But photographers seem to like the blah look. I've also seen this blah look in video. I don;t get it.

Have you used it?

You could show us your results. If you don't like it, we can judge your impression accordingly.

I appreciate you, this isn't a personal attack. But I'll be a little blunt in saying I'm not going to put too much weight. in a film based on impressions of postings random instagrammarians. You have to use a stock in your own workflow to get a really good impression. Even how you scan it make a difference.

I actually didn't care for my first roll of 800t test shots, but someone I took photos for was looking over my work one day and LOVED that they looked like an old movie (He didn't know it was cinestill, he just liked the look). No accounting for taste there. But, for good and not so good in use what I got wasn't what other internetters got. I'll shoot the new stuff before I write it off, too.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Have you used it?

You could show us your results. If you don't like it, we can judge your impression accordingly.

I appreciate you, this isn't a personal attack. But I'll be a little blunt in saying I'm not going to put too much weight. in a film based on impressions of postings random instagrammarians. You have to use a stock in your own workflow to get a really good impression. Even how you scan it make a difference.

I actually didn't care for my first roll of 800t test shots, but someone I took photos for was looking over my work one day and LOVED that they looked like an old movie (He didn't know it was cinestill, he just liked the look). No accounting for taste there. But, for good and not so good in use what I got wasn't what other internetters got. I'll shoot the new stuff before I write it off, too.

I'm not telling you not to use it. I was giving my opinion. Why do I have to actually use a particular film to express my opinion on what I see from others work with it? Do I have to make a pizza pie before giving my opinion on how a particular pizza tastes?

 

[Lachlan Young]

So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?
I know it’s flatter, less contrasty for easier printing/scanning.

It's designed to match the gradient of the print material, such that the print material will look 'right' when projected - and the gradient of the negative material is such that it'll hold a straight line of a given number of stops in the correct relationship to the print material. What that average gradient of an ECN-2 material delivers in terms of usable latitude when used outwith the designed exposure/ process circumstances should not be used as any basis for claims as to the film speed of the material when used as an ECN-2 material in cinema cameras. In other words, the speeds are correct for their intended processes and specifications, not for whatever off-label experiments people do with them.

 

[Moose22]

I'm not telling you not to use it. I was giving my opinion. Why do I have to actually use a particular film to express my opinion on what I see from others work with it? Do I have to make a pizza pie before giving my opinion on how a particular pizza tastes?

I told you, this is not personal. You're a good dude, and I like hearing your opinions. I want you to keep sharing them with me.

But, I would suggest you actually eat a pizza before you review it's flavor. Watching someone else eat a pizza and gauging their reaction is decidedly not the same. Nor is just getting a bite of someone's leftovers. You should try it yourself, eat it fresh, and eat it the way YOU like to eat a pizza. If you like parmigiano or don't, or crushed pepper or no, that all changes it. Maybe you didn't get the best by just taking a bite of someone else's. "I don't like x style pizza" as a general statement is... well, it's only a very general statement.

This is a forum for people who use film, in a thread about a new film release. We're not going to look at the pizza, we're wondering how it actually tastes when we get to take a bite.

More to the point, this is a new pizza cinestill is making. Whether or not you didn't like the instagrammarian's post with 800t, 800t is not the same. Maybe with 800t you are tasting the hawaiian pizza and this new one is a margarita. I'm going to try it with an open mind because of that.

You certainly don't have to use something to express an opinion. But that opinion doesn't contribute as much to the conversation as if we know you have also used it yourself. Especially just "cinestill" in general -- is this 50D or 800T you dislike? Neither of which are the new stock. Or is it just that you dislike movie film all around?

It's really fair warning to anyone else. I've had more than a few expectations based on internet reviews that, frankly, don't match reality. For good and for bad. Nothing's as good as trying it yourself, and random internet shots are not as good as seeing the results from someone whose work you know and whose style you understand.