Karim D. Ghantous

Fuji used polyester in Single-8, and all APS film cassettes contained film with polyester bases (you could get 40 exposures from and APS cassette). So, would polyester not be a good idea for at least some uses? I'm thinking of underwater photography where the magazines can be small but still allow a longer running time.

It's good to see Lomography get into cine film: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/316369-lomochrome-purple-16mm-motion-film I think that we'll see it used for two things: personal shooting (like holidays or what not) and commercial work. It's not my cup of tea, but then again, I don't mind the look.

Damn, I love Eyes Wide Shut, for so many reasons. This AC article says it was 5298 - pushed by two stops! https://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg1.htm Such a good looking movie. DP Larry Smith says that 5298 was better than 5279 when pushed. I guess the old-school stocks had more flexibility in some ways. Edit: 5219 is amazing though, and seems to have characteristics of old-school stocks as well as the advantages of the newest technology. I could read about film stocks all day long... :-)

Drew, firstly, thanks for posting the stills. These are very, very helpful, believe me. BTW I created an account so I could post in this thread (this is my first post on this site). Just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a photographer, shooting mainly digital, but I prefer film. I've had a look at the stills and I'm amazed. This is 16mm, 500T, pushed one stop, and the results look about the same as a lot of 8-perf 35mm that I see - in fact, this looks better. A lot of photographers are shooting CineStill etc. and from what I've seen, the results aren't that good in terms of graininess. I have nothing against grain - far from it - but merely on technical grounds, I'm amazed that these 16mm frames exhibit less graininess than a lot of 8-perf stills. What the hell is going on? I've seen medium format negs with graininess not that much less than what I'm seeing in your images. I don't understand it. I suspect it's the scanning - in photography, it's the weak link and quite laborious. From what I can see, the cine film scanners are amazing. And obviously, VISION3 is amazing - but photographers can't seem to get that stuff to work. I have not tried it myself, though, partly because I am not seeing good results. Maybe the problem is that photography scanners are literally scanners, whereas cinema scanners are, if I infer correctly, single-shot. Scanning lights probably accentuate the grain while not pulling out any more detail than single-shot scanners are. I'd really love some answers on this issue if you or anyone else has them. And thank you once again for posting these. It has been a revelation.