anything to back up these rumors that motion stocks will ditch the remjet layer?

[Dom Jaeger]

On 5/2/2026 at 12:20 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

It recently got worse, the most recent batch of 250D is having issues all over the world currently. 

I get around 2 requests per week to diagnose film stock issues/scratching. Prior to AHU, I would get maybe one a month. 

On 5/6/2026 at 1:11 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Na, we're seeing it on dozens of different cameras. One of the shoots, it was 3 cameras, over a dozen mags. 

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The good news is that in April, I only had 2 requests for AHU related issues and since then, it's been dead quiet. So maybe Kodak did fix the issues. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Meanwhile, it's an epidemic on every single Super 8 group online, it's literally everyone complaining. It's such problem, Phil himself recognized it and has been spending time on it.

So is it getting worse or has the problem gone away? Two requests a week or dead quiet?  Barely any issues since April but an epidemic for Super 8? Dead quiet except the camera currently in your shop that scratches with AHU instantly? Though it needs a 4K scan to see it. 

I’m confused.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

15 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

This is why the typical scientific methodology just doesn't work. The only "fixed" parameter we have is a brand new roll of remjet stock. I have a bunch of it and when I run it through a camera and it does not scratch, but any AHU I put through, does, then what would you say to that? 

What you say is that it's inconclusive and there's not enough evidence to pinpoint to a bad batch, something with the lab, or a random camera event - whichever it is it's simply not enough to come up with a definitive statement.

It's weird that you take this skepticism as a critique toward experienced professionals in the industry or yourself, it's really not.

As for the paperwork, what paperwork? There are clear lines of communication, NDA or not, a customer has the opportunity to discuss a matter in private - if there in fact were serious issues in quality control in large numbers there would have been private communications between the biggest processing labs and Kodak at some point in time and at the very least some information would have trickled back to customers.

I actually asked my latest lab about blue faint lines (as you told me last time) and I went over my own footage very thoroughly, I even asked if they had seen that on 16mm or 35mm footage in the last year - they hadn't - and of course I am talking about 4K and they mentioned Arri SR2's, XTR's etc.

 

Edited May 9 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

What you say is that it's inconclusive and there's not enough evidence to pinpoint to a bad batch, something with the lab, or a random camera event - whichever it is it's simply not enough to come up with a definitive statement.

Again, if the cameras all run fine with Remjet, but have issues with AHU, then it's very clearly an AHU issue. 

Definitive answers are not possible with an organic process like film, there are too many variables. 

This is why people keep shooting and hope for the best. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

It's weird that you take this skepticism as a critique toward experienced professionals in the industry or yourself, it's really not.

It's unwarranted criticism and is part of the reason you don't see more people discussing it on here. People who shoot professionally, do not have time to deal with proving anything. They're busy on the next project. I'm in a unique case because we have a controlled pipeline; I look at their cameras, I use arguably the top lab in the world to process their film, then we scan their film on a machine that has no way of damaging it. So when issues show up, the only variable is really the film itself. Especially when the film does not scratch during testing. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

As for the paperwork, what paperwork? There are clear lines of communication, NDA or not, a customer has the opportunity to discuss a matter in private - if there in fact were serious issues in quality control in large numbers there would have been private communications between the biggest processing labs and Kodak at some point in time and at the very least some information would have trickled back to customers.

Umm, yea that's happened and I have been on those calls. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I actually asked my latest lab about blue faint lines (as you told me last time) and I went over my own footage very thoroughly, I even asked if they had seen that on 16mm or 35mm footage in the last year - they hadn't - and of course I am talking about 4K and they mentioned Arri SR2's, XTR's etc.

Who did you ask? The scanning tech or some random Joe answering the phone? 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

14 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Who did you ask? The scanning tech or some random Joe answering the phone? 

I asked the actual owner, and key technical person responsible for that business.

15 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's unwarranted criticism and is part of the reason you don't see more people discussing it on here. People who shoot professionally, do not have time to deal with proving anything.

No one is placing any type of critique on them, but if as you said they can't prove anything, then it's only fair that they cannot claim anything as a matter of fact, no?

The only thing that comes out of this conversation, is that it's inconclusive and there had been some reports on AHU but nothing that can be substantiated by hard facts.

[Robin Phillips]

its worth noting that if a vendor like tyler is seeing issues on 10s of thousands of feet of film with AHU, thats actual data and shouldnt be dismissed. but no vendor is going to publish issues they see without the OK from the client, and thats pretty unlikely to happen. 

But this is kinda dumb to continue to be combative about this. If you're not seeing problems on the volume and/or batches you've been shooting, great. If someone is seeing issues and needs some kind of mechanical compensation so that their cameras can keep working, thats also cool.

but we should not be dismissive of anyone posting issues they're encountering, either themselves or reports from clients.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

35 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

but we should not be dismissive of anyone posting issues they're encountering, either themselves or reports from clients.

I believe the critical aspect here is how you place a report not so much the reporting itself. There's great value in posting observations without necessarily generalizing them.

I have witnessed here on many occasions a somewhat strange fixation on Kodak apparently failing to meet quality standards and that of course includes the imminent failure of the company itself, the failure to introduce Portra as a cine stock among other things, the fact that Super 8 cartridge are universally bad, that people are crying after complete catastrophe (that was remjet by the way) in people's porches or backyards and so on....

So if you allow me Robin, I am kind of skeptical toward the presentation and serving of certain bits of information, so from my side no one is shooting the messenger, but maybe a bit of critique of the news editorial quality?

Edited May 9 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

but no vendor is going to publish issues they see without the OK from the client, and thats pretty unlikely to happen. 

When Kodak had issues with Remjet production in 2022, they made no public statements. When I talked to my people at Kodak, they all knew about the issues and blamed the labs. Yet, they still happily gave EVERYONE who complained, new film to compensate, from 65mm to super 8. Nothing was ever published, nobody ever discussed it because it was easy to recover with a bit of post work. 

I've been shooting Kodak film since 1986 and until 2022, that was the first time I had ever actually had a 9 roll shoot ruined that required digital post cleanup to fix. Kodak fixed it fast, next emulsion batch it was gone. 

At the time I was scanning a 70,000ft feature and I told them to stay away from 50D due to the issues. One batch of 200T had the same issue, it was a hand full of rolls, then went away during the production. Same lab, same camera, but different emulsion numbers over the time of the shoot. The client didn't really mind, they said nobody would care because it was really only noticeable in the blacks on the 200T and it was only a few scenes. The 50D is so much crisper, it was more noticeable in my opinion. 

These AHU issues are so random, there is no rhyme or reason, that's the main difference. 

Edited May 9 by Tyler Purcell

[Jon O'Brien]

I've finally filmed my first roll of the new AHU film stock, 16mm 50D, 100 ft. I will post it off and see what results I get back.

I filmed it on my Bolex Rex 5 S16.

It was an interesting shoot.

The subject was a pretty famous guy in Aussie film circles. He used to live in Melbourne and was the cinematographer for many of the famouns music 'videos' (shot on 16mm) for Australian rock bands in the early 70s and onwards. He filmed the famous "Eagle Rock" music video of an eagle doing a cool dance on the ground, at Melbourne Zoo.

He's been a rock musician for quite some time now and has moved up to my area in Queensland. So, I went and filmed one of his outdoor gigs. Trouble is that the light was poor, and they were playing under a deep overhang in heavy shadow, and I had no lighting with me. And with 50D film. But we shall see if I got any useful footage of the band ....

In other news, Panavision has offered to hire me a Millenium XL-2 film camera and 40mm anamorphic lens for a short film shoot. I'm thinking over whether to go ahead with this. I already have the film stock. I could shoot either 2-perf (my own gear) or go with anamorphic 4-perf. If I rent the Millenium XL-2 I will get someone to write up a story on it, for the Guardian most likely. The appeal of the Panavision gear is actually the great ease of recording sound, plus the street cred of being the first to use Panavision 35mm in Queensland for many a long year.

But do I have time for all this? That is the question.

 

[Simon Wyss]

Millennium, with two n

Latin: mille (thousand) and annum (year)

[Jon O'Brien]

18 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Millennium, with two n

Latin: mille (thousand) and annum (year)

Thanks Simon. Quite so.

I was top of my English class several times at school, and was good at spelling, but I tend to type too fast and hit submit too quickly. It's why my posts are often edited.

I will post a little film on Karim's Super 8, 16mm and 35mm short film thread to make up for it. Shot entirely on film (but I know Simon that you don't like Super 8. Ah well. I think it can be cool for some little projects).

[Jon O'Brien]

On 5/13/2026 at 2:03 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

I've finally filmed my first roll of the new AHU film stock, 16mm 50D, 100 ft. I will post it off and see what results I get back.

I filmed it on my Bolex Rex 5 S16.

It was an interesting shoot.

The subject was a pretty famous guy in Aussie film circles. He used to live in Melbourne and was the cinematographer for many of the famouns music 'videos' (shot on 16mm) for Australian rock bands in the early 70s and onwards. He filmed the famous "Eagle Rock" music video of an eagle doing a cool dance on the ground, at Melbourne Zoo.

He's been a rock musician for quite some time now and has moved up to my area in Queensland. So, I went and filmed one of his outdoor gigs. Trouble is that the light was poor, and they were playing under a deep overhang in heavy shadow, and I had no lighting with me. And with 50D film. But we shall see if I got any useful footage of the band ....

 

Got the footage back. Looks good.

Beefed up the gain etc in Davinci Resolve to solve the lighting problem. The film footage responded well in Davinci.

No probs really with the Bolex and the AHU stock. But guess what?

Twice, if you look really carefully, you will see a slight reflection caught on film, on the RH edge of frame. I would say most likely from the pressure plate reflecting light back into the emulsion, during a pan.

Am I worried about it? Nah.

I'm sure someone will provide blacked out pressure plates for Bolexes sometimes soon. it's such a fleeting moment, anyway. The second time it happened you could barely see a thing. The first time, it was just a frame or two. No problem!

Will post soon. I just have to recolour grade it as the scanner accidentally scanned the film at 25 fps so he resent me the file and I now have to regrade it. Again, no problem. I like the practice.

[Jon O'Brien]

Name of the famous Aussie filmmaker I filmed playing music was none other than the amazing Chris Lofven. the very famous David Williamson is his B.I.L. They both live up my way.

[Dom Jaeger]

8 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Twice, if you look really carefully, you will see a slight reflection caught on film, on the RH edge of frame. I would say most likely from the pressure plate reflecting light back into the emulsion, during a pan.

Am I worried about it? Nah.

I'm sure someone will provide blacked out pressure plates for Bolexes sometimes soon. it's such a fleeting moment, anyway. The second time it happened you could barely see a thing. The first time, it was just a frame or two. No problem!

Hi Jon,

The Bolex pressure plate is already black. 

An edge flare could be light reflecting of the side wall of the gate aperture, especially if it's a S16 conversion. Might need blacking out if it's bare metal. 

[Jon O'Brien]

1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Hi Jon,

The Bolex pressure plate is already black. 

An edge flare could be light reflecting of the side wall of the gate aperture, especially if it's a S16 conversion. Might need blacking out if it's bare metal. 

Good to know. I did mean to take that thing out, and check the gate for hairs, before filming. I haven't taken out a Bolex pressure plate for quite some time. I'm more familiar with the SR, as you can't avoid seeing the plate on the mags. Might get you to look at the Bolex at some stage.

Edited June 9 by Jon O'Brien