The Kodak's Vision3 film is actually a great option now, when the film prices went up a lot. Excellent results, and now they are providing some ECN-2 kits to develop it at home!
I believe the remjet layer is mostly carbon and prevents static build-up in movie equipment, as well as having antihalation properties. Where shooting/self-processing movie film is worth the effort is in 16mm still cameras (eg Minolta). The remjet is quite easily removed with a washing soda pre-wash + water rinses followed by development in ECN2, RA4 or even C41 (but this is when you might notice colour shifts).
I have remove Remjet layer by myself using powder washing machine detergent. A coffe spoon in 1 litre 20°, well disolved, 30”. Wash till water be clear. Applied to Fujifilm cine film, Remjet layer is practically removed. On Kodak films remain some Remjet traces that can be removed easily with your fingers.
I learned about the ECN-2 process when I managed a camera store years ago. There was a film people shot called Seattle Film Works & we sent it out of house to develop. I love that motion picture film is being used by so many budding photographers these days. Thanks for sharing this video!
Hello! Remjet doesn't really come off in a normal photo lab machine. I monitored our chemistry and filters for a while after one of my colleagues (not their fault, they were not aware of this kind of film) put a roll of Vision3 through our minilab for a customer (not *really* their fault either, no-one had told them). I then put some of my film through as a test, no damage. So contamination is actually minimal in practice. But as you say, the risk is there. I was politely annoyed with the customer. That said, I don't think they ever came back for the film...
Interesting about the sprocket holes on 35mm film. Movie production in the West used 35mm film with what are known as Bell and Howell sprocket holes (the curved sides as you have shown). In Russia they used 35mm movie film with rectangular sprockets like those used for still film cameras. I know this because I once purchased a pin registered 35mm movie camera from a Russian dealer who shipped it from St. Petersberg. Before he could he had to modify the pins in the camera to use Bell and Howell sprocket holes instead of the rectangular sprockets.
Great video! Funny timing that CZcams suggested this to me, because I just found out yesterday that apparently Natural Colour Lab in Markham, ON will do ECN-2 now - I guess some people with bulk loaded Vision 3 stuff convinced them to do them. Just thought I'd mention since you're in Toronto afaik.
It should be pointed out that the beginnings of 35mm stills photography was in making a camera that could use cut down cine stock. Film dedicated to stills photography was developed afterwards.
Hi! Could you do a video on 35mm cinema film? I would love if you could go behind the scenes with a cinematographer. Or just talk about the history of the format and how it was invented!
Now that we have the practical processing differences and similarities well described, how about a video on the aesthetic differences? A lot of people hate cinema stock such as Lomography's offerings, and some people seem to love it. Either way, there are clearly differences that can divide opinion. I am less familiar with color cine stock vs photo film stock, but I would love to see an overview of both color and B&W cine vs stills films, and perhaps what is it about cinematic shooting that prefers a certain look as opposed to what stills photographers tend to prefer.
Noah, my uncle was an industrial photographer. He would go around the world for customer demands. when he purchased film stock, he would freeze it to extend its shelf life.
You answered my question. Thanks. I would like to make a developing tank using arduino. I can put that jet rinse in it and air blast rinse and dry. Well, one of these days....
It does bump the contrast up somewhat because I believe ECN-2 is designed to give flatter results because movie productions go through so much post processing that they need very flat negatives. I’ve sometimes noticed a green shift as well. You can get a sense of it if you have a chance to shoot cinestill rolls under good lighting conditions. I have more experience doing C41 in ECN chemicals and was always happy with those results.
There's one thing that confuses me, cinestill is available in 120 format, but kodak vision 3 is available at it's largest in 65mm, which technically fits, but has sprockets within the frame yet cinestill 120 doesn't have these sprocket holes. Kodak technically has 2383 in 70mm stock, and it can be loaded into some medium format cameras just fine, but it is not the stock used by cinestill because it is ISO 3 and has a clear base instead of cinestill ISO 50, 400 or 800 and typical orange base. So where cinestill gets it's 120 film stock is a mistery.
remjet can be swiflty removed with sodium carboate and bicarbonate, available in your local store thus allowing you to benefit the marvels of vision3 in c41 cinestill is far to expensive compared to vision3, also the anti halation layer is removed
In the 90s there was some service that let you shoot on Kodak Vision stock and send them the exposed rolls in a Tyvex envelope. They'd mail you back your negs and prints, and a FREE roll of same stock. I liked it a lot but had no idea why i couldn't just take it to regular place. Now I know. Thanks for fun videos.
Have you done a roll review of any motion picture stocks? Ultrafine makes something called Groovy Moovy film that I really want to try. They have some labs listed on their website that can process it for you. It's almost the same price as regular C-41 processing
I will have to keep that in mind! I have some experience with developing color cinema stocks at home, but I'm not setup to do it at the moment so I would have to send it away. Hadn't heard of Groovy Moovy before!
I know its a longshot but ive been collecting various old cameras maybe once ive got a decent amount (say 70 or more) and a decent supply of film like 35mm, 16mm, double 8, and super 8 im hoping to open up a small shop in my old town to sell various cameras and film types It seems theres alot of people interested in film photography here but sadly theres no stores around that sells a variety pf film types (in my area its just fuji 400 iso 35mm film) So would this be a good idea or would it not work?
Call me an idiot. I get the sprocket holes are different BUT... while people put cinema film into 35mm still cameras and it's fine could you not do the opposite and say put a bulk roll of say Ilford pan f or hp5 on a core and shoot it in a 35mm cinema would that even work?
But the lingering question I'd have is; Why? Why go through the trouble of removing the REMJET layer and spooling motion picture film into photo film spools for still photography in the first place?
Cheap but still high quality. Regular film is so expensive and hard to find in many places these days. And in my city, there are a few places that process motion picture film, so you don’t have to process it yourself.
I want to get into bulk loading film. Which black and white cinema film should I look out for? Seems like some of the film actually has a remjet layers
The easiest is Kodak’s Double-X Black and White film if you would like to do it with Cinema Film! This is standard film with no remjet and I’ve hand processed dozens of bulk loaded Double-X before with no problems!
Hi! If I were to remove the remjet layer with a baking soda solution BEFORE developing a cut down roll of Kodak Vision film, would it still affect the lifespan of my C-41 chemicals?
That would help to slow the contamination of it. I usually do a rinse and it helps, but there will still be some remjet that gets into the chemicals usually.
For the most part yes. Like black and white chemicals are fine, with color film it’s just important to remember that cinema film has the extra backing layer on it that will be an issue with chemicals in a photo lab machine.
It’s actually almost always negative on large productions and would then be printed as a positive at the very end if it’s being projected in a theatre!
@@AnalogResurgence Unfortunately, most of the movie theaters don´t have the equipment for showing film prints any more. It is mostly just video files from a hard disk.
@@b6983832 i worked at a theater and spent lots of time at booth. It’s all just a computer. No projectors. I know a neighboring theater had real projectors
200ft is a little difficult. For developing motion picture film by hand you need a special tank like a LOMO or MORSE tank. And you're usually limited to 100ft at a time with those so you would actually have to cut your film in half and splice it back together later on!
Analog Resurgence thank you so much! I’m making my first film. I’m filing it on the ArriFlex IIC. I have some knowledge but now an expert . I would love some extra help. If your interested message me on my insta official_anthony.valentino
@@AnalogResurgence ah, i have a local film lab that processes ecn 2 film so i'm fine by that, i'm just concerned if there's a quality difference between them
@@dustineagan3881 As long as well-maintained ECN-II chemistry is used, the quality should be as good as stills. But there's a lot of factors. One is that there are four films on the market, two (50D, 250D) are balanced for 5500K daylight, while the others (200T, 500T) are balanced for 3300K tungsten lights. So you need the right lighting, or color-conversion filters.
These are some pictures which I took a few months ago on Vision 3 5203 (50D) stock; www.flickr.com/gp/190182740@N02/36Jw9t The penultimate shot, looking across the old lock gates was shot on digital, but all of the others are on film. These were processed in ECN-2 by Nick & Trick in the UK.
How what did you say that place was in canada that tries to save old film i have an old p-51 mustang gun camera that has a cartridge of 16mm motion picture film in it i would like to try and get developed
![How Does Film ACTUALLY Work? (It's MAGIC) [Photos and Development] - Smarter Every Day 258](/img/n.gif)
This channel will be big. This guy is charismatic and informative, loving it
Yes
He definitely deserves a larger audience.
The Kodak's Vision3 film is actually a great option now, when the film prices went up a lot. Excellent results, and now they are providing some ECN-2 kits to develop it at home!
I believe the remjet layer is mostly carbon and prevents static build-up in movie equipment, as well as having antihalation properties. Where shooting/self-processing movie film is worth the effort is in 16mm still cameras (eg Minolta). The remjet is quite easily removed with a washing soda pre-wash + water rinses followed by development in ECN2, RA4 or even C41 (but this is when you might notice colour shifts).
I have remove Remjet layer by myself using powder washing machine detergent. A coffe spoon in 1 litre 20°, well disolved, 30”. Wash till water be clear.
Applied to Fujifilm cine film, Remjet layer is practically removed. On Kodak films remain some Remjet traces that can be removed easily with your fingers.
I learned about the ECN-2 process when I managed a camera store years ago. There was a film people shot called Seattle Film Works & we sent it out of house to develop. I love that motion picture film is being used by so many budding photographers these days. Thanks for sharing this video!
Hello!
Remjet doesn't really come off in a normal photo lab machine. I monitored our chemistry and filters for a while after one of my colleagues (not their fault, they were not aware of this kind of film) put a roll of Vision3 through our minilab for a customer (not *really* their fault either, no-one had told them). I then put some of my film through as a test, no damage. So contamination is actually minimal in practice. But as you say, the risk is there. I was politely annoyed with the customer. That said, I don't think they ever came back for the film...
Thanks for your videos! I just discovered your channel and I love it! Keep on making these great informative vids!
Thank you, so informative
Interesting about the sprocket holes on 35mm film. Movie production in the West used 35mm film with what are known as Bell and Howell sprocket holes (the curved sides as you have shown). In Russia they used 35mm movie film with rectangular sprockets like those used for still film cameras. I know this because I once purchased a pin registered 35mm movie camera from a Russian dealer who shipped it from St. Petersberg. Before he could he had to modify the pins in the camera to use Bell and Howell sprocket holes instead of the rectangular sprockets.
Great video! Funny timing that CZcams suggested this to me, because I just found out yesterday that apparently Natural Colour Lab in Markham, ON will do ECN-2 now - I guess some people with bulk loaded Vision 3 stuff convinced them to do them. Just thought I'd mention since you're in Toronto afaik.
That’s really good to know because there’s definitely people out there that are really interested in it, but can’t do it themselves!
Outstanding content! Thanks so much Noah.
I learned a lot, thanks!
Really love the channel Noah! Been shooting film for a few years now and you've seriously been a great resource on the subject!
I watched 3 videos and I know so much!!! Excited to learn more from you, thank you so much for these amazing video's!
That was really worth knowing, thak you.
It should be pointed out that the beginnings of 35mm stills photography was in making a camera that could use cut down cine stock. Film dedicated to stills photography was developed afterwards.
Hi! Could you do a video on 35mm cinema film? I would love if you could go behind the scenes with a cinematographer. Or just talk about the history of the format and how it was invented!
you can use a pre bath first next water to agitate for 5 min and then rinse until clear and then apply the C41 process....
Now that we have the practical processing differences and similarities well described, how about a video on the aesthetic differences? A lot of people hate cinema stock such as Lomography's offerings, and some people seem to love it. Either way, there are clearly differences that can divide opinion. I am less familiar with color cine stock vs photo film stock, but I would love to see an overview of both color and B&W cine vs stills films, and perhaps what is it about cinematic shooting that prefers a certain look as opposed to what stills photographers tend to prefer.
My local lab does a lot of different processes even ecn2
Noah, my uncle was an industrial photographer. He would go around the world for customer demands. when he purchased film stock, he would freeze it to extend its shelf life.
I wonder if Noah is gonna make a video about 16mm film and its cameras (Bet $16 for this)
Isaac, No news from Noah about 16mm. I do 16mm and 110. Terry
You do very interesting contents! Keep it like that :-) Thanks so much!
this is very informative and helpful! thank you!
That is so very well explained!!
You answered my question. Thanks. I would like to make a developing tank using arduino. I can put that jet rinse in it and air blast rinse and dry. Well, one of these days....
Very interesting!
Didn't Kodachrome slide film also have remjet? Not a problem because the process was so specialist anyway.
To remove remjet just mix 50g borax into water at 40C and rinse for 5 minutes then wash with water until it comes out clean
I've even had pretty good results just using normal baking soda!
@@AnalogResurgence I've tried that and it worked but it made a mess of my dark tank so I'd recommend borax
Are you going to do more videos on 16mm? Thats what I've been shooting and I've developed it using Caffenol C which is a homemade developing chemical
AWESOME
Keep making vids!
Aside from the remjet issue, does processing cinema films in C-41 result in color shifting or off-kilter contrast or saturation?
It does bump the contrast up somewhat because I believe ECN-2 is designed to give flatter results because movie productions go through so much post processing that they need very flat negatives. I’ve sometimes noticed a green shift as well. You can get a sense of it if you have a chance to shoot cinestill rolls under good lighting conditions. I have more experience doing C41 in ECN chemicals and was always happy with those results.
Another great video!
There's one thing that confuses me, cinestill is available in 120 format, but kodak vision 3 is available at it's largest in 65mm, which technically fits, but has sprockets within the frame yet cinestill 120 doesn't have these sprocket holes.
Kodak technically has 2383 in 70mm stock, and it can be loaded into some medium format cameras just fine, but it is not the stock used by cinestill because it is ISO 3 and has a clear base instead of cinestill ISO 50, 400 or 800 and typical orange base.
So where cinestill gets it's 120 film stock is a mistery.
Cinestill is able to source it from Kodak in 120 size because they have the money to have that done custom for them most likely.
remjet can be swiflty removed with sodium carboate and bicarbonate, available in your local store thus allowing you to benefit the marvels of vision3 in c41
cinestill is far to expensive compared to vision3, also the anti halation layer is removed
Is REMJET layer the only difference? What if this layer is removed in first projection?
Update for people in Toronto/Canada: Downtown Camera has officially announced that they will be able to process Motion Picture films now!
Cinestill removes the remjet layer for still photography
Has there ever been bulk film sold for C-41 films?
In the 90s there was some service that let you shoot on Kodak Vision stock and send them the exposed rolls in a Tyvex envelope. They'd mail you back your negs and prints, and a FREE roll of same stock. I liked it a lot but had no idea why i couldn't just take it to regular place. Now I know. Thanks for fun videos.
Actually there is no 70mm camera film it is 65mm, only the print (positive) film is 70mm to take the magnetic tracks that are not on the negative.
I've found using borax and warm water removes the remjet pretty well.
Sadly there was only one aspect discussed. The Chemical process and not their image or grain properties.
Have you done a roll review of any motion picture stocks? Ultrafine makes something called Groovy Moovy film that I really want to try. They have some labs listed on their website that can process it for you. It's almost the same price as regular C-41 processing
I will have to keep that in mind! I have some experience with developing color cinema stocks at home, but I'm not setup to do it at the moment so I would have to send it away. Hadn't heard of Groovy Moovy before!
I know its a longshot but ive been collecting various old cameras maybe once ive got a decent amount (say 70 or more) and a decent supply of film like 35mm, 16mm, double 8, and super 8 im hoping to open up a small shop in my old town to sell various cameras and film types
It seems theres alot of people interested in film photography here but sadly theres no stores around that sells a variety pf film types (in my area its just fuji 400 iso 35mm film)
So would this be a good idea or would it not work?
Call me an idiot. I get the sprocket holes are different BUT... while people put cinema film into 35mm still cameras and it's fine could you not do the opposite and say put a bulk roll of say Ilford pan f or hp5 on a core and shoot it in a 35mm cinema would that even work?
But the lingering question I'd have is; Why?
Why go through the trouble of removing the REMJET layer and spooling motion picture film into photo film spools for still photography in the first place?
Cheap but still high quality. Regular film is so expensive and hard to find in many places these days. And in my city, there are a few places that process motion picture film, so you don’t have to process it yourself.
I want to get into bulk loading film. Which black and white cinema film should I look out for? Seems like some of the film actually has a remjet layers
The easiest is Kodak’s Double-X Black and White film if you would like to do it with Cinema Film! This is standard film with no remjet and I’ve hand processed dozens of bulk loaded Double-X before with no problems!
Hi! If I were to remove the remjet layer with a baking soda solution BEFORE developing a cut down roll of Kodak Vision film, would it still affect the lifespan of my C-41 chemicals?
That would help to slow the contamination of it. I usually do a rinse and it helps, but there will still be some remjet that gets into the chemicals usually.
Hey for a jobo developing tank, I dont have the (centre tube ) nor the reel for it. Do any reels fit in this tank ?! 1502 ? Or is it just 16mm
Which tank?
Hi I have a question can you use the same chemicals to develop motion picture film as photography film?
For the most part yes. Like black and white chemicals are fine, with color film it’s just important to remember that cinema film has the extra backing layer on it that will be an issue with chemicals in a photo lab machine.
Thank you this will help me alot!
I never realized that motion picture film could be negative, I just assumed it was color reversal, like slides.
It’s actually almost always negative on large productions and would then be printed as a positive at the very end if it’s being projected in a theatre!
@@AnalogResurgence Unfortunately, most of the movie theaters don´t have the equipment for showing film prints any more. It is mostly just video files from a hard disk.
@@b6983832 i worked at a theater and spent lots of time at booth. It’s all just a computer. No projectors. I know a neighboring theater had real projectors
I’m filming on 35 mm 200 ft rolls is it possible to develop at home ?
200ft is a little difficult. For developing motion picture film by hand you need a special tank like a LOMO or MORSE tank. And you're usually limited to 100ft at a time with those so you would actually have to cut your film in half and splice it back together later on!
Analog Resurgence thank you so much! I’m making my first film. I’m filing it on the ArriFlex IIC. I have some knowledge but now an expert . I would love some extra help. If your interested message me on my insta official_anthony.valentino
Tri-X black and white movie film has remjet
Is it fine to shoot photos with an ECN 2 film rather than the common c41 since ecn 2 film is a cinema film and not a photographic film?
You can, but many normal photo labs will not develop ECN2 film! The video details this more!
@@AnalogResurgence ah, i have a local film lab that processes ecn 2 film so i'm fine by that, i'm just concerned if there's a quality difference between them
@@dustineagan3881 As long as well-maintained ECN-II chemistry is used, the quality should be as good as stills. But there's a lot of factors.
One is that there are four films on the market, two (50D, 250D) are balanced for 5500K daylight, while the others (200T, 500T) are balanced for 3300K tungsten lights. So you need the right lighting, or color-conversion filters.
@@inthestudy ahh i see, thanks for your help!! I really appreciate it
These are some pictures which I took a few months ago on Vision 3 5203 (50D) stock;
www.flickr.com/gp/190182740@N02/36Jw9t
The penultimate shot, looking across the old lock gates was shot on digital, but all of the others are on film. These were processed in ECN-2 by Nick & Trick in the UK.
U amazing
How what did you say that place was in canada that tries to save old film i have an old p-51 mustang gun camera that has a cartridge of 16mm motion picture film in it i would like to try and get developed
www.filmrescue.com/
Analog Resurgence awesome thank you soo much! If anything comes out of the film ill send you copies!
it's really great that film is dead, so much waste of time is not necessary anymore
Film ain’t dead, people still shoot on it.
@@jdc9687 0.00000001% and most are hipsters