which still film is most similar to kodak's color negative motion stock?

[Joe Zakko]

i'm shooting a short and I want to cheaply do a test and take my slr to test certain lighting conditions. Does anybody know which still film that's available that has the most similar color palette to kodak's 16mm color negative? There might be no perfect substitute, but I really can't afford to shoot a test roll.

 

Thanks in advance

[Dan Dorland]

You can actually shoot Vision 3 500T nowadays, thanks to Cinestill. They took 500T and removed the remjet, so it can be processed like any C-41 color negative. The package says 800T, but it's the same film, it's just comparable to an 800-speed film.

 

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/800135-Cinestill-800-ISO-Tungsten-Xpro-C-41-Film

[Bill DiPietra]

Portra 400 actually incorporates Kodak's Vision technology. I would try that.

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400main.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/2987

 

As for CineStill, it's one thing to make eliminating the anti-halation backing available for special order...but the entire line of the product?

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

CineStill is fantastic. Have put several rolls of it through my F2. The halation isn't as strong as something like Double-X

[Dan Dorland]

In a stroke of lucky timing, looks like they just announced 50D for pre-order as well.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/800235-CineStill-50-ISO-Daylight-Xpro-C-41

[Joe Zakko]

should I rate it at 500 or 800?

[Bill DiPietra]

Do you know what stock you are going to be using for the film?

[Joe Zakko]

500T

[Bill DiPietra]

I would try the Portra 400 simply because it (supposedly) incorporates Kodak Vision technology. I would rate it at whatever you plan to rate the film at because it's nearly the same ASA as 7219 - about 1/3 of a stop difference.

[Joe Zakko]

well I already bought the cinestill since it was touted as being the same film just reappropriated for stills, at this point I'm just confused as to why it's rated at 800 if it's supposedly a 500 speed film and how should I expose it? Should I just assume it's virtually identical to 7219 and rate it at 500? If I do that, should I tell the lab to process it as 500?

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Here is a good Portra comparison to CineStill.

 

I think the reason they rate at 800 is because their process (and C-41) gives this film higher gamma, so you're exposing deeper into the highlights. That said, this film has so much latitude that you are generally going to be safe rating at 500.

 

From CineStill:

 

 

From our tests and user feedback, CineStill 800T best rated at EI (Exposure Index) 800 in tungsten light when processed in standard C-41 chemistry. Though the original stock (Kodak 500T 5219) is recomended to be rated at EI 500 in tungsten light, many cinematographers and filmmakers regularly rate this film at 1000 speed with no push, due to this film's amazing shadow latitude, but the ideal ISO/EI to rate this film at will always be somewhere between 400 and 800 without push processing. CineStill 800T is designed C-41 processing though, which causes a slight push in development, resulting in a more dense negative so we have found 800 to be right in the middle of the ideal Exposure Index range.

[Bill DiPietra]

well I already bought the cinestill since it was touted as being the same film just reappropriated for stills, at this point I'm just confused as to why it's rated at 800 if it's supposedly a 500 speed film and how should I expose it? Should I just assume it's virtually identical to 7219 and rate it at 500? If I do that, should I tell the lab to process it as 500?

 

It's not the same. If it says 800T, the manufacturer has set the index exposure (IE) to be exactly that. Those are two different ASAs with a 2/3 of a stop difference. You need to pick one. I would probably rate the CineStill at 400 (since that is closer to the ASA you will be working with) and tell the lab to pull process the film 1 stop.

 

Apparently, Kodak 5219 is the source material that CineStill is based on. But that's it. CineStill has an ASA of 800T, whereas Kodak's 5219/7219 has an ASA of 500T.

[Stuart Brereton]

Apparently, Kodak 5219 is the source material that CineStill is based on. But that's it. CineStill has an ASA of 800T, whereas Kodak's 5219/7219 has an ASA of 500T.

Apparently, the difference in ISO is down to differences between ECN-2 and C-41 processing.

 

Test, test, test.