CineStill 50D

<p>With my frozen supply of discontinued Agfa Ultra 100 dwindling, I decided to try out CineStill 50D, touted as the finest grain colour negative emulsion available. I shoot a fair amount of Kodak Ektar, but wanted to give CineStill a whirl. Not bad results for a motion picture stock. Here are several shots, although it's admittedly hard to judge the grain by relatively low resolution posts.</p><div></div>

<p>•</p><div></div>

<p>›</p><div></div>

<p>»</p><div></div>

<p>ˆ</p><div></div>

<p>It is indeed a very fine-grained film. Some film scanners (most of them) exaggerate grain. But when you scan this on something like a Pakon, which has great colour but exaggerates grain, you see almost no grain. That's impressive.</p>

<p>This stock holds highlights very well, or so I'm led to believe. It seems to have a nice look, based on these images.</p>

<p>Would you buy your wife a brass ring at 3 times the price of a gold one?</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>With my Mamiya 7II and 80mm lens, I can see a big difference between the resolution of Ektar 100 negative and Velvia 50 in favor of Velvia. Recently I became aware that Kodak’s specs for VR 100 negative film showed it to be their highest color negative film resolution, higher than Fuji's Velvia 50. All my VR 100 negatives are gone so I cannot go back and look with my good quality 60 power microscope scope. Results from my shots with VR 100 never seemed outstandingly sharp but I was not judging it at the time. </p>

<p>Has anybody compared the resolution of Cinistill 50D against other high resolution color films? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Velvia was my all-time favourite transparency emulsion. I started shooting Ektachromes since the early 1960's when I was given my first camera by a favourite uncle who was a semi-pro — it was a Kodak Brownie Starmeter, and I shot a load of 4- × 4-cm Ektachromes. Once I 'graduated' to 35mm, I was a Kodachrome junkie. In the waning days of Kodachrome, I shot about two-thirds with Velvia and a third with Kodachrome. I extensively photographed the American High Desert Southwest and Hawai`i — my two favourite places on earth (from a photographic perspective) — using Fuji Velvia but shot at ISO 40/17°. I have since given up on slide films and am working on several bricks of Agfa Ultra 100 — in my freezer — and Kodak Ektar 100. (Some day I'll scan all my Velvias from the 90's.)</p>

<p>These were all taken on Velvia, rated at 40/17°—</p><div></div>

<p>My opinion about Cinestill is that it cost 3 times what a normal film for still photography would cost and that the stock from which it is made is explicitly specified by Kodak not to be time stable. So what is the point? Luckily we still have some very good negative film available, why not buy for the same money 3 rolls of those and have the certitude that your images will not fade away in a couple of years?<br />One could argue that Cinestill has a specific look (indeed the "producers" of it argue this way) but to be honest I don’t see anything that other films could not deliver. Also one could argue that diversity is good. OK, but paying for one roll the price which could buy me 3 rolls of other films would kill those 3 other. Why not pay Fuji or Kodak that money so they can keep their film alive? If I buy from Cinestill than Kodak will get (best case) the money for one roll, most probably not even that. So I prefer to buy 3 rolls of any of their films for the same amount I would pay for Cinestill.</p>

<p>Cinestill is a little over $10. So I do not know, where, you can buy three rolls of film for that price, as one person mentioned. Film has gone way up in price especially slide film. One roll is close to $10.</p>

<p>Eddy d: Cinestill is negative film, so let not compare it pricewise to slides. <br />Even if Cinestill would cost the same as a normal negative, I still would buy the normal negative, only if even for the long term stability.<br>

Just looked it up: In my part of the world a roll of Cinestill 800 (they don’t have the 50 version) cost 51 Lei, A roll of Superi Xtra 800 cost 33 Lei. 400H (this is a pro grad film) cost 39 Lei. The cheap films cost 12 Lei (Fuji C200, Kodak Color Plus 200) 23 Lei (Fuji Superia 200), 29 (Ultramax 400, but Ive seen it cheaper). Even Ektachrome is 39 Lei and slide like Velvia 50 is around 30 Lei.<br>

If I order from Germany (looked at Fotoimpex, Macodirect should have more or less the same prices): both Cinestill 50 and 800 cost 11 Euro. All "normal" color films in 135 format between 3 and 5 Euro even X-tra 800 being offered at 6 EUR. (Athough I don’t know why Superia 200 and 400 is at such extreme prices.) So we have a relation between 1:2 and almost 1:3.</p>

<p>CineStill 50D from Amazon the USA is about $10 per roll, depending on the quantity. Kodak Ektar runs from $8 to $10 per roll, depending on quantity. Not much of a real difference price wise.</p>

<p>It's a bit cheaper at the Film Photography Project online store, but they do not remove the Remjet, so you have to send it to a lab that can develop ECN-2 film.</p>

<p>Well I do not know where you live in the world , but here in the states, slide or negative pro film is close to $10 or more for one roll so it is the same.</p>

<p>OK, if in your part of the world Cinestill and a roll of pro film cost the same that means you buy a cheap product at an overprice. If besides the profit of Kodak the company Cinestill has to invest in removing the remjet and canning also can make a living it means the original product is in fact cheaper to make than film for still photography. <br /><br />I also dont see comments about long term stability. Is this not an essential part when choosing which film to use?</p>

Eugen, as this film is for movie stock...it is just as archival or more than any other color neg film.

<p>I ordered 6 rolls of the Cinestill 50D and 800 films. I brought them on a visit to Toronto, to photograph my children with their grandfather. After I got back, I sent the rolls to North Coast Photographic for developing. They called me, and warned me that they've had problems with Cinestill films. Occasionally the remjet is not removed properly, and you get long horizontal streaks which extend the entire length of the film.</p>

<p>Sure enough, the roll with the pictures of the children with their grandfather was the one that had the streak issue. All pictures on that roll were ruined.<br>

From now on, I will stick to Kodak Portra, or a Fuji film instead, for color negative film.</p>

<p>Robert, maybe instead of buying CineStill, you could buy the movie films with the Remjet still applied (such as from the Film Photography Project), and send them to the Little Film Lab, who are equipped to remove it.</p>

Eugen, as this film is for movie stock...it is just as archival or more than any other color neg film.

So why does Hollywood still keep their movie stock in cold storage vaults?

Because all color negative film has dyes that will deteriorate over time and cold storage will prolong their life.

So why does Hollywood still keep their movie stock in cold storage vaults?

 

Because it makes it last even longer. Was your comment really a question?