Goodbye remjet, hello AHU?!

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Uli Meyer said:

Interesting, thank you for sharing the photo! I'll be shooting a short film in a couple of weeks and was told that the material I will receive is still with the remjet layer. I think it might be a little while before the remjet stock gets phased out. While that happens, they'll probably be running a machine that can process it.

Yea, they aren't releasing the new stock to the public yet, it'll be a while. 

They won't be phasing out the older stock anytime soon. 

The main reason they're phasing out remjet has to do with inconsistencies with the coating and removal, which has plagued many films. They wanted to offer an alternative process to deal with it and now they do have one. Kodak is blaming the labs for the remjet removal issues. The labs are blaming Kodak, so it's all a big cluster. 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I just had another idea: why not cut out a piece of film with Remjet on it, and stick it to the pressure plate? Quick and dirty, but it might work.

[Uli Meyer]

1 hour ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I just had another idea: why not cut out a piece of film with Remjet on it, and stick it to the pressure plate? Quick and dirty, but it might work.

I'm curioust to know why you think that a remjet layer will withstand thousands of feet of film moving past it? 

[Mark Dunn]

5 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I just had another idea: why not cut out a piece of film with Remjet on it, and stick it to the pressure plate? Quick and dirty, but it might work.

IIRC the tension is set set for a single thickness of film. Two thicknesses would presumably risk sticking. Recall the trouble with some stocks in the Super-8 cartridge due to differing base thickness.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

5 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I'm curioust to know why you think that a remjet layer will withstand thousands of feet of film moving past it? 

[Aapo Lettinen]

8 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I just had another idea: why not cut out a piece of film with Remjet on it, and stick it to the pressure plate? Quick and dirty, but it might work.

film layers scratch each other even if they move just a tiny bit, for example if pulling from the loose end of the film roll

[Martin Baumgarten]

If excess Halation is such a possible issue with the new forthcoming VISION film, I don't understand why KODAK just doesn't use a disolvable anti-halation dye as in their former VNF Ektachrome films. The dye dissolves in the Color Developer.  Seems like such an easier fix, unless there's environmental issues with that dye they used.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

I ordered Super8 colour negative films today, two of the 3 stocks are now delivered with AHU, new Cat number, no choice when the old stock runs out.

 

[Scott Bullock]

On 6/5/2025 at 1:00 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Can't make it smooth enough, talked to an expert, not gonna work. 

Now we're researching paints that can be polished. 
 

Just thinking aloud here and didn't read every post but I wonder if hot bluing the pressure plates would work--like manufacturers do with firearms. I'm almost positive chrome can be blued in this manner. It may eventually wear down (maybe not?) like you see with older guns that have been cleaned, used and handled for years, but it's not adding a layer to the surface like paint or ceramic. Basically, it's oxidyzing the metal. Keep it cleaned and lubricated when not in use, re-blue as necessary. Just a thought.  

[Scott Bullock]

7 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

Just thinking aloud here and didn't read every post but I wonder if hot bluing the pressure plates would work--like manufacturers do with firearms. I'm almost positive chrome can be blued in this manner. It may eventually wear down (maybe not?) like you see with older guns that have been cleaned, used and handled for years, but it's not adding a layer to the surface like paint or ceramic. Basically, it's oxidyzing the metal. Keep it cleaned and lubricated when not in use, re-blue as necessary. Just a thought.  

For that matter, cold bluing might even work, at least for testing purposes, and could be done more easily. Hot bluing is a more extensive and hazardous process but might provide a longterm solution.  

[Ludwig Hagelstein]

From experience of having processed and scanned a feature and multiple commercials now on AHU 16 and 35mm stock I can guarantee you all the fear with pressure plates and halation is waaaaay overcooked. We did not encounter any issues. The only thing you'll notice is that the film is cleaner. That's it. There is really no reason to be afraid. 

[Dirk DeJonghe]

It still remains a problem with Double-X B&W negative film, AHU would not work and the grey base is the only anti-halo protection provided. It would still be a good idea to find black chromed pressure plates instead of shiny chrome.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hello Dirk, my understanding is that Kodak is only going to change their ECN-2 stocks.

[Tyler Purcell]

22 hours ago, Scott Bullock said:

Just thinking aloud here and didn't read every post but I wonder if hot bluing the pressure plates would work--like manufacturers do with firearms. I'm almost positive chrome can be blued in this manner. It may eventually wear down (maybe not?) like you see with older guns that have been cleaned, used and handled for years, but it's not adding a layer to the surface like paint or ceramic. Basically, it's oxidyzing the metal. Keep it cleaned and lubricated when not in use, re-blue as necessary. Just a thought.  

Yea blue chrome is inherently reflective and because it's blue, you'd get an unusual tint in the halation. 

[Jeremy Saltry]

On 6/6/2025 at 1:07 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea, they aren't releasing the new stock to the public yet, it'll be a while. 

They won't be phasing out the older stock anytime soon. 

The main reason they're phasing out remjet has to do with inconsistencies with the coating and removal, which has plagued many films. They wanted to offer an alternative process to deal with it and now they do have one. Kodak is blaming the labs for the remjet removal issues. The labs are blaming Kodak, so it's all a big cluster. 

Thats really odd as they tested "9219" of which I have a can that is 5219 without Remjet. That was from 10 years ago. 

They did that test as a way to see of remjet-less film was possible as they were having issues sourcing carbon and raw materials within their specifications. The source on this is a very senior position at Kodak MP

By the way we just got some Fuji back from one of the east coast labs that HAPPILY processed it and came back with zero remjet. 

I really think sometimes you're making things up. 

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Saltry said:

They did that test as a way to see of remjet-less film was possible as they were having issues sourcing carbon and raw materials within their specifications. The source on this is a very senior position at Kodak MP

Isn't that what I said "The main reason they're phasing out remjet has to do with inconsistencies with the coating and removal, which has plagued many films." 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Saltry said:

By the way we just got some Fuji back from one of the east coast labs that HAPPILY processed it and came back with zero remjet. 

I really think sometimes you're making things up. 

I mean do you find this test of a brand new sealed, always frozen roll of Eterna 250D being acceptable? 

(The worst issues start at 3 minutes) 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0ukesl8cw9hm48pb5bvjk/USIO-Steady-Test.mov?rlkey=ia178na9h2d2s19cjeah8m1cu&st=luf0o06j&dl=0

 

 

[Felipe Larrondo]

Working on a 35mm project and we’re getting both remjet and AHU stock on 5207 and 5219. Bit of a bummer to find that the new AHU stock is noticeably louder on the LT, especially on 1000ft rolls towards the last 200ft. Also noticing that on the Penelope, steadiness takes a hit with the AHU.

No issues with halation so far

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Felipe Larrondo said:

Bit of a bummer to find that the new AHU stock is noticeably louder on the LT,

Hey bro! 

The AHU film is thinner than rem jet film, so the gap needs to be adjusted on the body most likely. Andree has the shims and can do this job no problem. 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Felipe Larrondo said:

Also noticing that on the Penelope, steadiness takes a hit with the AHU

The gap is calibrated on the Penelope with the 4 little Torx screws on the outside magnetic corners of the pressure plate. What I've been doing for steadiness/loudness problems is basically slowly adjusting those to alter the gap. They don't have a process for measuring it sadly because you can't get in there with a feeler gauge like you can on the Arricam's, but if you were so inclined to experiment, I would turn them clock wise 1/4 of a turn (all 4 of them) which will reduce the gap slightly. You may hear the camera sound different as well. I find the Penelope, if it's quiet, it's stable. 

Edited August 4, 2025 by Tyler Purcell

[Dom Jaeger]

On 8/5/2025 at 6:34 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

The AHU film is thinner than rem jet film, so the gap needs to be adjusted on the body most likely. Andree has the shims and can do this job no problem. 

I checked this with Kodak and they told me that AHU stock is the same thickness as remjet film. Even if there was a slight difference of microns,  I can't see that making a noticeable difference in noise. I actually asked Andre Martin from AM Camera (among other experienced camera techs), and he had not come across this issue.

Can you explain to me why you think a variation in thickness would create more noise in the last 200ft of a 1000ft roll in an Arricam?

 

[Dom Jaeger]

On 8/5/2025 at 12:12 AM, Felipe Larrondo said:

Working on a 35mm project and we’re getting both remjet and AHU stock on 5207 and 5219. Bit of a bummer to find that the new AHU stock is noticeably louder on the LT, especially on 1000ft rolls towards the last 200ft. Also noticing that on the Penelope, steadiness takes a hit with the AHU.

No issues with halation so far

Have you brought this up with either Kodak or the rental house? 

The only thing different about the last part of a 1000ft roll compared to the first part is the take-up resistance in the magazine (the spool needs to slip faster) which would be a camera issue, or possibly the curvature of the film since it is more tightly wound on the spool. But fresh stock shouldn't be affected by curvature memory. 

According to Kodak AHU stock has been on the market for 8 months across the US and EU (after several years of development and testing) so I would imagine any noise issues would have come up by now. When I asked them, they had not encountered this issue. Nor issues with steadiness.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Can you explain to me why you think a variation in thickness would create more noise in the last 200ft of a 1000ft roll in an Arricam?

Nobody noticed it until then? Happens all the time. 

Also, the new film is not the same thickness. The base is now a black silver layer which has an anti-static/anti-scratch coating on it. 

I have been talking to camera assistants who have been shooting with the yet to be released Portra 400 MP stock about this problem for the last 2 years. Today with the AHU coating film out and circulating, we have heard more complaints. We have shot with it once already and on our personal cameras, didn't notice much of a difference. I will be reporting back once we have more testing done. An A/B comparison is the only real way to tell and that's challenging to setup. 

As you well know, the issue could be the friction coefficient changing, rather than more obvious things like thickness, dimensions and perforations. I haven't heard these "loudness" issues first hand, so until someone brings me a camera and film, I'm spitballing based on what I already know. 

In the end, if the issue isn't there with the old film, but is there with the new film, the challenge is to figure out why and make the requisite adjustments. 

[Tyler Purcell]

14 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Have you brought this up with either Kodak or the rental house?

The guys at Kodak House were the ones who confirmed the issues weren't isolated. 

Most people are scared to report on forums about issues like this, but rest assured there are people reading this who know. 

I heard about this issue first from an AC friend of mine when the Portra 400 film was being tested with this new coating. He felt they would have fixed it by now, but the issues never changed with the final release of the new AHU coating. They confirmed with me earlier this year the film they're working on, had similar loudness issues, amongst halation problems they had to step around. 

You should come to America and figure this out, we shoot a lot of film here and there have been very limited amount of resources put towards solving the issues. I rarely work on gray bodies, I'm mostly working on black bodies and Aaton's. 

[Dom Jaeger]

50 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Nobody noticed it until then? Happens all the time. 

What happens? Extra noise?

All the time, meaning what? On every camera, every project? Every film job complains to you about noise? You say you've personally only tested one roll and didn't notice. So it's clearly not ALL the time, right? 

Why has Andre Martin not heard of this if it happens "all the time"? Or other techs I've talked to? 

 

52 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Also, the new film is not the same thickness. The base is now a black silver layer which has an anti-static/anti-scratch coating on it. 

So how thick is it then? What's the difference in microns? Be specific.

I'm relaying what Kodak told me:

"The AHU (anti-halation undercoat) layer has been sandwiched between the light capturing layers and the acetate base. The emulsion pack has been redesigned so that the total thickness of the AHU film and current remjet film lies within the noise of our upper and lower manufacturing limits for both film structures.

 

The AHU is not Thinner than Remjet backed film."

 

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

As you well know, the issue could be the friction coefficient changing, rather than more obvious things like thickness, dimensions and perforations. I haven't heard these "loudness" issues first hand, so until someone brings me a camera and film, I'm spitballing based on what I already know. 

If it is a real issue there could be a number of things to look at, rather than the thickness you blamed it on before. But again, you admit to not having experienced any of this personally, so it's all anectdotal conjecture at this point. 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

23 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

What happens? Extra noise?

People shoot half a roll and don't notice how loud the camera is because something has changed on set, OR they weren't paying attention until the last few feet. I'm on set all the time and if the camera is on steady or jib, you can't hear it. The idea that someone could suddenly hear loudness, is something that I ignore especially on something like an Arricam, which isn't going to suddenly lose the loop. Also, sometimes inexperienced people blame loose film rubbing on the inside of the mag as "loudness". 

23 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Why has Andre Martin not heard of this if it happens "all the time"? Or other techs I've talked to? 

Everyone is talking about it, I have no idea why nobody has told techs. I talked to Kodak about it and they were 

23 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

So how thick is it then? What's the difference in microns? Be specific.

I've been super busy the last few days, I will gladly post the details shortly.

23 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I'm relaying what Kodak told me:

"The AHU (anti-halation undercoat) layer has been sandwiched between the light capturing layers and the acetate base. The emulsion pack has been redesigned so that the total thickness of the AHU film and current remjet film lies within the noise of our upper and lower manufacturing limits for both film structures.

That's a press release. Completely irrelevant. 

23 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

If it is a real issue there could be a number of things to look at, rather than the thickness you blamed it on before. But again, you admit to not having experienced any of this personally, so it's all anectdotal conjecture at this point. 

After I measured the thickness and saw it was different, I made a conclusion that it must be the reason why there are issues. It's not anecdotal, it's a caliper measurement. The clients I deal with, also shouldn't be brushed off because 2 other techs in the country haven't heard about this issue. Maybe the rental houses they service cameras for, haven't reported back, as this film is just starting to be used. In fact, the first batch of 16mm film literally hit the shelves last month. I'm simply being copasetic to my clients and customers who have issues. They don't want to hear from someone thousands of miles away who can't help them, they need answers now.