Cinestill’s actions only made reflexlab more popular; now after the commotion they caused, popular TH-camrs and influencers are using it and thus having more reach even outside Asia.
It takes time to do research like this. I think it's worth the wait to look back and really understand what's going on. This is wonderful, thanks Daren!
This is something I wanted to highlight. CineStill's film and process legitimately did bring an amazing film to market that otherwise would not have existed, maybe even today. CineStill did pave the way, and their remjet-removal process did create a higher-quality product.
First off I have to say that I no longer buy Cinestill film precisely because of this issue. I supported the 400D kickstarter, got a ten pack early on and was very impressed. So much so that I bought several more bricks (packs of ten for the uninitiated) over the next year or so. The part of the problem that annoys me the most, which was hinted at but not really discussed in this video, was why did Cinestill send cease and desist letters to retailers as well? I would understand if they sent a letter to Reflx labs, and others who are respooling this film stock but why did they have to drag Catlabs in? Not only did this bring the issue out into the public but it meant there was a far wider audience as well. Potentially it could have been limited to a legal battle between respoolers and the public would have been none the wiser. By doing this 'shotgun' approach they dragged as many people in as possible, many of whom are innocent. As far as I am concerned their 'double down' explanation did them no favours either. I think this whole issue has been badly handled at their end, only time will tell if that rings true.
This is a fascinating examination. A good point made at the end - a remjet removal homekit would be great. Isn't that just water and baking soda, or is there more to it?
Thank you! There are a few different formulas. Baking soda, washing soda, I've also seen some with borax as well. But I know some are supposed to be better than others for the film and the health of the developer thereafter. I'll start doing some research and seeing if I can find the best solution to recommend.
Nope, no CineStill for me. For two reasons: First, I don't like the halation, second I don't like companies playing games with the trademark system (knowing how hard it is to get a registered trademark here in Germany - our lawyer was extremely picky to get a name that would actually be a viable trademark). Buying their C-41 chemicals is another thing, as it has become harder to get decently priced C-41 chemicals lately (with Tetenal having filed for bankruptcy - again).
@@LearnFilmPhotography Checked on Fotoimpex (a German seller, part of ADOX), and CineStill CS41 is the cheapest (for 1 liter). I like their 2 bath powder kit, even though it is less stable than the Tetenal kit. But what I've just seen is that ADOX has - finally! - come up with a C-41 kit (only slightly more expensive, seems to be the Tetenal recipes) - but it is already sold out … 😂 (same as with their D-76, which was also sold out very fast on first release). So I'm going for the ADOX C-41 when available!
Their standard color films are, like the Lomo CN 100, 400, and 800 are from Kodak. But the Lomo 92 and much of their B&W lineup come from manufacturers in Europe.
That's Canada for you! There's only one company that imports film, so they charge a pretty hefty markup. A pro pack of Portra 400 at my local retailer is $160 right now, which is just ridiculous. Because of that, I, and I think most others, usually just buy from the US once or twice per year.
I can tell you some interesting info about this, most of your info is correct, but a few things are only available within china by now, such as the knockoffs that worried cinestill (they had absolutely no branding, but a quite similar design and colors). They're coming back with other iso designations and less-similar branding now. The Chinese market is the wild west, alive and filled with innovation. Also, those expensive cinestill rolls on AliExpress are original. The price is high because they're essentially resellers, this is the case in china for all imported films because of taxes and tariffs. They have sales because cinestill can be really hard to get in many places and Ali has worldwide shipping. There's so much more to be said about this.
As someone who respools medium format film: Yeah, it’s hard. The film is one thing, but you can find it. The paper though. Dear god, the fucking paper. I have asked, and asked, and asked. No one sells it. Bane of my existence. Also, anyone can get master roll quantities of Aerocolir. In 35mm, 120, 5”, and 9.5” rolls. There’s a minimum order, but for 35/120 it’s $40k, which isn’t insurmountable. And for 5” film, it’s only $6k. Anyone who has a lot of time, starting capital, and a rototrim can make 4x5 aerocolor.
What is special about the paper besides the numbers arranged for different film formats? Is it the black side that has a special coating to avoid damaging the film?
I can totally agree with your analysis of CS trying to pave the way for investors or cashing out on their business... but I think that could also backfire because of the lack of proprietary tech and the huge PR hit they took with the whole trademark fiasco. Eastman Kodak could see potential investors start to pop up and totally try to poach them to develop a whole line of cinema film aimed at the photography market. Unless, of course, their current agreement with CS is really constraining. Great video, kudos from a fellow Canadian.
I think the PR hit wouldn't be as big of a deal to investors as the lack of ability to expand their business. CineStill is in every major market in the world right now, but there aren't any other products they can release that could match 800Ts popularity. There's no other company that has a film stock aimed exclusively at Hollywood, meaning the only path forward would be to rebrand other films - which just splits the market.
About Amber 800t being more expensive: Where I live, its actually the other way around, Amber is about the same, but cinestill is more expensive, thus Amber (if you can get it, it's not as common), is cheaper.
@LearnFilmPhotography Germany, and, Cinestill here usually sells for around 20 Euros, its ceaper online, with Fotoimpex selling it for 18,43 Euros, but thats both significantly more expensive than the usual 15 Euros for Amber and 16 Euros for Dubblefilm cinema (wich has 36 exposures just like Cinestill 800t). Cinestill 800t is in the price regions as Portra 800 or even respooled ektachrome.
@LearnFilmPhotography Germany, and, Cinestill here usually sells for around 20 Euros, its ceaper online, with Fotoimpex selling it for 18,43 Euros, but thats both significantly more expensive than the usual 15 Euros for Amber and 16 Euros for Dubblefilm cinema (wich has 36 exposures just like Cinestill 800t). Cinestill 800t is in the price regions as Portra 800 or even respooled ektachrome
This is a great video. The information, the narration, the stream of evidence for your talking points and short interruptions for it not to be just a talking head video. The roasting on HP. Amazing. Great work, thank you!
I think they are TOTALLY in the right trying to trademark 800T and 400D for reasons you and most people don't consider. The film they are selling is not 800 or 400 iso, therefore 800t and 400D are not film descriptors. The name is entirely a marketing term to sell the film, probably chosen because color 800iso film is practically non existent and 2/3rd stop underexposed is totally acceptable for vision 3's latitude, same goes for 400D. No matter how much the social media people at cinestill want to try and gaslight you into believing they are selling 800 iso film, removing the remjet and developing in c41 does NOT magically transform vision 3 500T into 800iso film. Many people have tested this showing that you get far better results shooting the film at the correct speed (500). The funny thing is they don't market vision 3 50D as 80D even though it also has the remjet removed and is expected to be developed in c41, because the key selling point of that film is that it IS slow! The fact they are now getting the film from kodak directly without the remjet at all means it COULD be argued that it is a "unique" emulsion under their unique marketing name "800T" or "400D". Nobody else has an agreement with kodak so cinestill are the ONLY ones selling these films that never had the remjet to begin with. This means anyone else marketing a 800T or 400D film which has had the remjet removed after the fact WOULD technically make it a counterfeit of cinestill's "unique" film that no one else currently sells (till kodak makes a deal with someone else). I really think other companies should just market the films correctly as 500T/250D with or without the remjet. reflex lab sells both 250D and 500T with and without remjet but they also up the rating for the remjet removed films by 2/3rds of a stop. It is all 100% marketing, and cinestill is actually in the right to trademark their made up fake term, even though it is completely disingenuous. Though trying to trademark "cine" or "cinefilm" is laughable because those ARE descriptors of the film, since the film they sell is in fact just cinematography film. It is really unfortunate all of fuji's cine film stocks are discontinued because it means everyone selling cine film is selling kodak vision 3 just like cinestill. Remember kodak only makes 50D, 200T, 250D, and 500T cinema film (they might still make some kind of color intermediary film for "printing" but I don't think anyone has ever tried to shoot that in a camera). Also cinestill and other company's non remjet removing ECN2 kits are great, not because it is made just for remjet removed ECN2 film but because you can develop regular color film in ECN2 and get better results, no point in including the extra remjet removal step in the development process if you are just developing regular film that never had it. ECN2 is objectively better than C41 in the modern era and it is probably what everyone should be using but old habits die hard especially with film photographers for some reason.
Halfway through the video, it sounds like whoever approved their trademark had no idea what 800T means. That's absolutely ridiculous. As if they trademarked the term "green paprika". Edit: A minute after writing this comment, the story about the appeal came up. It's interesting but to me as a reasonable person (and not a trademark attorney), their reasoning makes no sense.
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. CineStill is dead to me, personally. Though I never thought their rolls were really worth the money, even before the general price surge. But their recent behavior is simply not acceptable to me. Especially since they are the ones who messed up in the very beginning.
You can actually see the amount of documents the trademark office had for the initial denial of the Trademark inside the ruling. They had about 6 documents where they found terms like 800T used by Kodak as a description of the film's properties. So it's also very strange to me that they allowed it on the basis CineStill was the only one using it at that time - because, theoretically, other manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak, Ilford/Harman, or Adox may now be forever unable to release their own 800T film product.
@@LearnFilmPhotography "theoretically, other manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak, Ilford/Harman, or Adox may now be forever unable to release their own 800T film product." I don't think so, they can still challenge this "trademark", at least outside the US (and it won't be as expensive, say, here in Germany - our judicial system is very different). It just seems that they have no need to do so at the moment. Not enough money in this game.
For sure, that's always a possibility. But that can take a long time and a lot of money to do. I think only Kodak or Fuji would have the means to take it on if it were worth it. But film is still a niche market.
@@LearnFilmPhotography When Cinestill applied for their trademark did that automatically apply in all 50 states? I'm just asking due to the Taco Tuesday trademark Taco John's had in all states but New Jersey is a different restaurant added there.
I recently started shooting film and I have gone through a roll of CineStill 800T and a roll of CineStill 400D. I honestly don’t like the halation. I have a couple shots I like a lot, but the halation made them kind of ugly. I am also a lawyer. I don’t really see what they’ve done as being all that horrible. They wanted a trademark, tried to get it registered, and tried to protect it. It was clumsily done and they failed all around. It doesn’t sound like anyone has been harmed by this. At most, a few people were mildly distressed by the cease and desist letters CineStill sent. I would buy their film if I thought it was a good product.
Yea , they halation is nice at night time when your going for that moody look sometimes but shooting it during the day it’s pretty ugly and annoying. I only shoot cinestill really in light controlled or no bright light environments to avoid the highlights
The big thing, in my view, is that at the face of it, they did the Taco Tuesday thing, where they take a generic term and hoard it to themselves, which harms everyone in the end. And I think this shows the failure of the Trademark system that allowed it to happen.
@@LearnFilmPhotography Yes, that's a legitimate concern and I understand that frustration. Let me be clear and say I am not an IP lawyer and I have no special insight into trademark law. I also misunderstood your video, but after reviewing the PTO docket, now understand that they have a registered mark based on 5 years of use. Even so, this doesn't really change my mind. On the one hand, they would likely always have some sort of claim against other manufacturers for appropriating their trade dress, i.e., the appearance of their packaging, including the 800T text on the boxes. On the other hand, this really doesn't impact other manufacturers. At a couple points, you mentioned that they failed to come up with a distinct name like Acros or Ektar. Well, other companies can learn from that mistake and create their own names. If a new company came along, they can simply call their film whatever they want, let's say "Beauregard." Then write, "800 ISO Film, Tungsten Balanced." I would be shocked if Cinestill had a claim based on that. It's not apparent that Reflex's "800" name is infringing on the mark and that will likely be settled through litigation. But I understand the mark was issued almost two years ago and Cinestill hasn't initiated any litigation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm way more upset that CatLabs started a defamation campaign against CS than that CS made people change their names from 800T. I dont think they did anything wrong, they absolutely popularized the name 800T. Theres no reason other companies cant call it Amber Blue and describe the specs on the box. Thanks for making this video, great info!
I'm inclined to see it as a mistake. Seeing the letters CineStill sent, I can see how things got a bit out of control - it's really easy to misinterpret these things when lawyers are involved. The only reason I understand it is because I had to take publishing law classes in my undergrad. In my view, there's three possibilities. 1. CineStill actually did sue and CatLabs could not give any information since it was all under a non-disclosure agreement, which CineStill capitalized on. 2. CatLabs is playing 4D chess and trying to goad CineStill into a lawsuit. 3. It's all a misinterpretation that went too far too fast. I'd use Hanlon's razor to suggest it's most likely option 3.
@LearnFilmPhotography I think if it were a mistake on catlabs part they'd probably have taken the post down. I do think they tried to goad them into a lawsuit based on that CS sent an informal notice then CatLabs told CS to send an official cease and desist. CatLabs is local to me and the people who work there are delightful but the owner has a really bad attitude.
What's a bit irritating is that Cinestill seems to have got their fingers into Kodak's relaunch of their chemistry products, which is being made by a subcontractor in Michigan, instead of Sinopromise out of China. I see CS as a good webmarketer, who has done some good things for the film photo world, but they definitely stubbed their toe with the 800T situation. Anyone with the least bit of imagination could have come up with a more unique name for their 800T product. I wasn't a real fan of CS films before this, because I don't shoot a lot of pics of gas stations at night. I did support their 400D project, but being a bit cheap, I can't say that I feel like I need to spend $15 for a roll of film that halates. Tungsten balanced film in daylight does not appeal to me. I'm old school, and that sh...stuff needs an 85 filter to use in daylight. I can spool my own 50D, process myself and deal with the remjet. I've also slit, respooled and shot 65mm in 120 size. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to spend a bunch of money to buy out cinestill. It's a niche product in a very niche market, which tends to be rather price sensitive. Look at Europe, where nobody understands what's going on with Tetanol, Agfa and its sisters/offspring (ORWO, Adox ?). Film for photography only seems to work as a passion project (Ferrania) and/or as a project for someone that doesn't have much better to do (Kodak, Harman/ Ilford, Foma), and who seems to make it work, mainly out of sheer momentum. Then you have Fuji, you @#$% bunch of quitters!
@@LearnFilmPhotography fairly miserable. I had to 3d print a custom setup film slitter, which cut off 2mm on each side of the film. You have to pull the film just right, to keep from shredding the sprockets. Then spool onto recycled backing paper. And getting 65mm film isn't exactly easy. But I enjoy doing stupid things with my photography. Easier to buy premade from reflxlabs and ship from China.
@@LearnFilmPhotography and like you, I've seen the cinestill FUD on ECN2, and I don't quite get it. It mainly centers around sulfuric acid as a stop bath and pot. ferricynide as a bleaching agent, neither of which HAS to be used.
ISO number and either D or T are descriptive terms. They cannot be trademark and thus aren't. The 800T trademark is so obviously wrong that is must be considered invalid, i.e. like it never existed. I was one of the early adopters and liked Cinestill for quite some time... Now I boycott them. I will never buy another roll until they stop this bullshit.
i recently printed ECN-2 processed 250D optically via RA-4 Process and the results were absolutely lovely. Just saying for the 1% of you who wants to try it out for yourself :)
@@LearnFilmPhotography It was the same. Balancing the color out was the usual process. The colors on the print are absolutely lovely and the low contrast of the negative even helps with optically printing. Because modern C41-Negatives are almost always too contrasty for RA-4 Printing. I would be happy to print more ECN-2 processed negatives in the future. Only one caveat: The grain on 250D Vision 3 is so small, i had to use a Ilford HP5 negative, to focus the negativ on the paper.
That's amazing to hear! So there's an even smaller downside to ECN-2 than I thought. I agree, even for scanning, I often find C41 negatives too contrasty and too saturated. So it makes sense that would affect printing as well.
The fact is that Cinestill doesn't own any proprietary technology and doesn't do anything that others can't do. Technically other companies can take Kodak Cine film, respool it, remove the remjet, and sell it as photographic film. What other companies cannot do is to use any of the names that Cinestill have. Since Cinestill owns the copyright. Cinestill is trying to make more money and do better business, which makes sense. I have nothing against Cinestill, as I still like and use their films. Other companies need to make new brand names, then they can essentially sell the same product if they want to. Or a copyright dispute needs to be solved at court. What I don't understand is why Kodak doesn't produce C41 cine film without remjet themselves; thus wiping out Cinestill and everyone else as they could sell the film directly to customers for less than the re-packers.
That's the thing, Kodak actually does sell their cinema film for photographers. Portra 400 is almost exactly the same as Kodak Vision 3 250D, which the Wright brothers, who founded CineStill, admitted in the clip from the Kodakery Podcast at 45:47 in the video. It's not exactly the same, but it's very close - and I'm not sure if the only difference is the remjet/or anti-static layer.
@@LearnFilmPhotography Ah good to know. I always thought that Porta was its own emulsion totally seperate to the cinefilms, rather than the same thing.
Definitely still using Cinestill regardless, they made 800T popular to consumers and definitely should trademark it. Everyone else should rename that shit and move on.
Oh what? They're not even in color anymore? That's lame. They used to also give you a waterproof push/pull chart in the CineStill kits, which was very cool. But that stopped, too. And that HP video could be a possibility! Maybe on a different channel, though.
@@LearnFilmPhotography I kept the instruction from the first c41 kit I ordered from them because the quality of the printing keeps going down and push/pull chart is missing. I not to the point of never using Cinestill again, but the misleading marketing, poor instruction quality, issues with their E6 kit, all lead me to seek alternatives.
Have you continued using CineStill Film after this controversy? I want to hear your thoughts!
I totally stopped and switched to lil brands for spooled films
Cinestill’s actions only made reflexlab more popular; now after the commotion they caused, popular TH-camrs and influencers are using it and thus having more reach even outside Asia.
nope. :)
And I actually feel bad that I endorsed and tell people about them in the first place :)
_|_
You could always call it 800W for Wolfram, which is the German Name for tungsten and its abbreviation in the table of Elements 😉
Finally the cinestill deep dive this community has been waiting for!! Thank you so much for putting this together, fantastic presentation as always!
Thanks, Yvonne!!
It takes time to do research like this. I think it's worth the wait to look back and really understand what's going on. This is wonderful, thanks Daren!
Thanks Dmitri! And thank you for all your help with this one!
This is an incredible video. Thank you for posting it
Thank you!
I miss when a companies growth was tied to how many new technologies it could develop instead of how many grifts and rugpulls they can get away with.
Cinestill might have saved film photography when I was finding a-e1 for $3 at thrift stores
This is something I wanted to highlight. CineStill's film and process legitimately did bring an amazing film to market that otherwise would not have existed, maybe even today. CineStill did pave the way, and their remjet-removal process did create a higher-quality product.
22:27 either that or they don’t want to deal with the right owners to the terminator franchise since the T800 term is usually from that
an almost hour long video just to dunk on HP, lovely stuff!
Friends don't let friends buy HP.
33:47 Excuse me as I enjoy the TRUE Double Double from In-N-Out as I finish watching this video. 🍔
All 41 million Canadians vehemently disagree 😂
@@LearnFilmPhotography its okay cause theyre both canadian creations
First off I have to say that I no longer buy Cinestill film precisely because of this issue. I supported the 400D kickstarter, got a ten pack early on and was very impressed. So much so that I bought several more bricks (packs of ten for the uninitiated) over the next year or so. The part of the problem that annoys me the most, which was hinted at but not really discussed in this video, was why did Cinestill send cease and desist letters to retailers as well? I would understand if they sent a letter to Reflx labs, and others who are respooling this film stock but why did they have to drag Catlabs in?
Not only did this bring the issue out into the public but it meant there was a far wider audience as well. Potentially it could have been limited to a legal battle between respoolers and the public would have been none the wiser. By doing this 'shotgun' approach they dragged as many people in as possible, many of whom are innocent.
As far as I am concerned their 'double down' explanation did them no favours either. I think this whole issue has been badly handled at their end, only time will tell if that rings true.
Back in my day, a brick was a pack of 20 35mm rolls.
This is a fascinating examination. A good point made at the end - a remjet removal homekit would be great. Isn't that just water and baking soda, or is there more to it?
Thank you! There are a few different formulas. Baking soda, washing soda, I've also seen some with borax as well. But I know some are supposed to be better than others for the film and the health of the developer thereafter. I'll start doing some research and seeing if I can find the best solution to recommend.
Wow, great episode. Bro should be on tv.
Nope, no CineStill for me. For two reasons: First, I don't like the halation, second I don't like companies playing games with the trademark system (knowing how hard it is to get a registered trademark here in Germany - our lawyer was extremely picky to get a name that would actually be a viable trademark). Buying their C-41 chemicals is another thing, as it has become harder to get decently priced C-41 chemicals lately (with Tetenal having filed for bankruptcy - again).
Is CineStill CS41 the cheapest C41 kit in Europe? I always thought there were a few more options there.
@@LearnFilmPhotography Checked on Fotoimpex (a German seller, part of ADOX), and CineStill CS41 is the cheapest (for 1 liter). I like their 2 bath powder kit, even though it is less stable than the Tetenal kit. But what I've just seen is that ADOX has - finally! - come up with a C-41 kit (only slightly more expensive, seems to be the Tetenal recipes) - but it is already sold out … 😂 (same as with their D-76, which was also sold out very fast on first release). So I'm going for the ADOX C-41 when available!
@@LearnFilmPhotographynot sure for Germany, but in the Netherlands it is.
But I rather use the Bellini kit. For a few euros extra.
For chemicals in Europe Adox is a very nice and trustable alternative
ECN2 films are flatter for printing onto print and intermediate films not editing.
lomography is also kodak film
Their standard color films are, like the Lomo CN 100, 400, and 800 are from Kodak. But the Lomo 92 and much of their B&W lineup come from manufacturers in Europe.
18:30 $16.50 for one roll! 😱😱
And here I thought $26 for three rolls was expensive.
That's Canada for you! There's only one company that imports film, so they charge a pretty hefty markup. A pro pack of Portra 400 at my local retailer is $160 right now, which is just ridiculous. Because of that, I, and I think most others, usually just buy from the US once or twice per year.
@@LearnFilmPhotography $160 for five rolls! 😱😱😱😱😨😨😨😨
Yeah, it's nothing short of a tragedy!
I can tell you some interesting info about this, most of your info is correct, but a few things are only available within china by now, such as the knockoffs that worried cinestill (they had absolutely no branding, but a quite similar design and colors). They're coming back with other iso designations and less-similar branding now. The Chinese market is the wild west, alive and filled with innovation. Also, those expensive cinestill rolls on AliExpress are original. The price is high because they're essentially resellers, this is the case in china for all imported films because of taxes and tariffs. They have sales because cinestill can be really hard to get in many places and Ali has worldwide shipping. There's so much more to be said about this.
Reach out to my email (it's in the channel description) if you can - I'm interested in hearing more.
As someone who respools medium format film:
Yeah, it’s hard. The film is one thing, but you can find it. The paper though. Dear god, the fucking paper. I have asked, and asked, and asked. No one sells it. Bane of my existence.
Also, anyone can get master roll quantities of Aerocolir. In 35mm, 120, 5”, and 9.5” rolls. There’s a minimum order, but for 35/120 it’s $40k, which isn’t insurmountable. And for 5” film, it’s only $6k. Anyone who has a lot of time, starting capital, and a rototrim can make 4x5 aerocolor.
That's gotta be really frustrating! How much medium format film are you able to respool? And do you sell it? Or just use it for yourself?
I have rolled probably 600 feet of 70mm and 65mm film at this point, and I do indeed sell 120 and 220 film. And sheets, too!
Awesome to hear! Are you able to make a living off it?
Enough to buy cameras and gear for myself
What is special about the paper besides the numbers arranged for different film formats? Is it the black side that has a special coating to avoid damaging the film?
I can totally agree with your analysis of CS trying to pave the way for investors or cashing out on their business... but I think that could also backfire because of the lack of proprietary tech and the huge PR hit they took with the whole trademark fiasco. Eastman Kodak could see potential investors start to pop up and totally try to poach them to develop a whole line of cinema film aimed at the photography market.
Unless, of course, their current agreement with CS is really constraining.
Great video, kudos from a fellow Canadian.
I think the PR hit wouldn't be as big of a deal to investors as the lack of ability to expand their business. CineStill is in every major market in the world right now, but there aren't any other products they can release that could match 800Ts popularity. There's no other company that has a film stock aimed exclusively at Hollywood, meaning the only path forward would be to rebrand other films - which just splits the market.
About Amber 800t being more expensive: Where I live, its actually the other way around, Amber is about the same, but cinestill is more expensive, thus Amber (if you can get it, it's not as common), is cheaper.
Which part of the world are you in? I hear CineStill is outrageously expensive in Japan.
@LearnFilmPhotography Germany, and, Cinestill here usually sells for around 20 Euros, its ceaper online, with Fotoimpex selling it for 18,43 Euros, but thats both significantly more expensive than the usual 15 Euros for Amber and 16 Euros for Dubblefilm cinema (wich has 36 exposures just like Cinestill 800t). Cinestill 800t is in the price regions as Portra 800 or even respooled ektachrome.
@LearnFilmPhotography Germany, and, Cinestill here usually sells for around 20 Euros, its ceaper online, with Fotoimpex selling it for 18,43 Euros, but thats both significantly more expensive than the usual 15 Euros for Amber and 16 Euros for Dubblefilm cinema (wich has 36 exposures just like Cinestill 800t). Cinestill 800t is in the price regions as Portra 800 or even respooled ektachrome
I stopped buying cinestill because I really do not like the halation look. Especially when using something like 50D in the day.
That's totally fair. I think the halations only really work at night. They can be pretty distracting in daylight photos.
Been supporting Reflx Lab. Why pay overpriced Cinestill SGD29 to SGD31 in Singapore? It’s nothing original. No brainer.
This is a great video. The information, the narration, the stream of evidence for your talking points and short interruptions for it not to be just a talking head video. The roasting on HP. Amazing.
Great work, thank you!
Thank you! #friendsdon'tletfriendsbuyHP
@@LearnFilmPhotography
Or Cinestill. I haven't bought anything off of them since this trademark disaster came to light.
I think they are TOTALLY in the right trying to trademark 800T and 400D for reasons you and most people don't consider. The film they are selling is not 800 or 400 iso, therefore 800t and 400D are not film descriptors. The name is entirely a marketing term to sell the film, probably chosen because color 800iso film is practically non existent and 2/3rd stop underexposed is totally acceptable for vision 3's latitude, same goes for 400D.
No matter how much the social media people at cinestill want to try and gaslight you into believing they are selling 800 iso film, removing the remjet and developing in c41 does NOT magically transform vision 3 500T into 800iso film. Many people have tested this showing that you get far better results shooting the film at the correct speed (500). The funny thing is they don't market vision 3 50D as 80D even though it also has the remjet removed and is expected to be developed in c41, because the key selling point of that film is that it IS slow!
The fact they are now getting the film from kodak directly without the remjet at all means it COULD be argued that it is a "unique" emulsion under their unique marketing name "800T" or "400D". Nobody else has an agreement with kodak so cinestill are the ONLY ones selling these films that never had the remjet to begin with.
This means anyone else marketing a 800T or 400D film which has had the remjet removed after the fact WOULD technically make it a counterfeit of cinestill's "unique" film that no one else currently sells (till kodak makes a deal with someone else). I really think other companies should just market the films correctly as 500T/250D with or without the remjet. reflex lab sells both 250D and 500T with and without remjet but they also up the rating for the remjet removed films by 2/3rds of a stop. It is all 100% marketing, and cinestill is actually in the right to trademark their made up fake term, even though it is completely disingenuous.
Though trying to trademark "cine" or "cinefilm" is laughable because those ARE descriptors of the film, since the film they sell is in fact just cinematography film. It is really unfortunate all of fuji's cine film stocks are discontinued because it means everyone selling cine film is selling kodak vision 3 just like cinestill. Remember kodak only makes 50D, 200T, 250D, and 500T cinema film (they might still make some kind of color intermediary film for "printing" but I don't think anyone has ever tried to shoot that in a camera).
Also cinestill and other company's non remjet removing ECN2 kits are great, not because it is made just for remjet removed ECN2 film but because you can develop regular color film in ECN2 and get better results, no point in including the extra remjet removal step in the development process if you are just developing regular film that never had it. ECN2 is objectively better than C41 in the modern era and it is probably what everyone should be using but old habits die hard especially with film photographers for some reason.
since heard about this I won't buy cinestill products
Halfway through the video, it sounds like whoever approved their trademark had no idea what 800T means. That's absolutely ridiculous. As if they trademarked the term "green paprika".
Edit: A minute after writing this comment, the story about the appeal came up. It's interesting but to me as a reasonable person (and not a trademark attorney), their reasoning makes no sense.
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. CineStill is dead to me, personally. Though I never thought their rolls were really worth the money, even before the general price surge. But their recent behavior is simply not acceptable to me. Especially since they are the ones who messed up in the very beginning.
You can actually see the amount of documents the trademark office had for the initial denial of the Trademark inside the ruling. They had about 6 documents where they found terms like 800T used by Kodak as a description of the film's properties. So it's also very strange to me that they allowed it on the basis CineStill was the only one using it at that time - because, theoretically, other manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak, Ilford/Harman, or Adox may now be forever unable to release their own 800T film product.
@@LearnFilmPhotography "theoretically, other manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak, Ilford/Harman, or Adox may now be forever unable to release their own 800T film product." I don't think so, they can still challenge this "trademark", at least outside the US (and it won't be as expensive, say, here in Germany - our judicial system is very different). It just seems that they have no need to do so at the moment. Not enough money in this game.
For sure, that's always a possibility. But that can take a long time and a lot of money to do. I think only Kodak or Fuji would have the means to take it on if it were worth it. But film is still a niche market.
@@LearnFilmPhotography When Cinestill applied for their trademark did that automatically apply in all 50 states? I'm just asking due to the Taco Tuesday trademark Taco John's had in all states but New Jersey is a different restaurant added there.
I recently started shooting film and I have gone through a roll of CineStill 800T and a roll of CineStill 400D. I honestly don’t like the halation. I have a couple shots I like a lot, but the halation made them kind of ugly.
I am also a lawyer. I don’t really see what they’ve done as being all that horrible. They wanted a trademark, tried to get it registered, and tried to protect it. It was clumsily done and they failed all around. It doesn’t sound like anyone has been harmed by this. At most, a few people were mildly distressed by the cease and desist letters CineStill sent.
I would buy their film if I thought it was a good product.
Yea , they halation is nice at night time when your going for that moody look sometimes but shooting it during the day it’s pretty ugly and annoying. I only shoot cinestill really in light controlled or no bright light environments to avoid the highlights
The big thing, in my view, is that at the face of it, they did the Taco Tuesday thing, where they take a generic term and hoard it to themselves, which harms everyone in the end. And I think this shows the failure of the Trademark system that allowed it to happen.
@@LearnFilmPhotography Yes, that's a legitimate concern and I understand that frustration. Let me be clear and say I am not an IP lawyer and I have no special insight into trademark law. I also misunderstood your video, but after reviewing the PTO docket, now understand that they have a registered mark based on 5 years of use. Even so, this doesn't really change my mind.
On the one hand, they would likely always have some sort of claim against other manufacturers for appropriating their trade dress, i.e., the appearance of their packaging, including the 800T text on the boxes.
On the other hand, this really doesn't impact other manufacturers. At a couple points, you mentioned that they failed to come up with a distinct name like Acros or Ektar. Well, other companies can learn from that mistake and create their own names. If a new company came along, they can simply call their film whatever they want, let's say "Beauregard." Then write, "800 ISO Film, Tungsten Balanced." I would be shocked if Cinestill had a claim based on that.
It's not apparent that Reflex's "800" name is infringing on the mark and that will likely be settled through litigation. But I understand the mark was issued almost two years ago and Cinestill hasn't initiated any litigation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Pretty sure they already recovered. Awhile ago.
such a classic american story
I'm way more upset that CatLabs started a defamation campaign against CS than that CS made people change their names from 800T. I dont think they did anything wrong, they absolutely popularized the name 800T. Theres no reason other companies cant call it Amber Blue and describe the specs on the box.
Thanks for making this video, great info!
I'm inclined to see it as a mistake. Seeing the letters CineStill sent, I can see how things got a bit out of control - it's really easy to misinterpret these things when lawyers are involved. The only reason I understand it is because I had to take publishing law classes in my undergrad. In my view, there's three possibilities.
1. CineStill actually did sue and CatLabs could not give any information since it was all under a non-disclosure agreement, which CineStill capitalized on.
2. CatLabs is playing 4D chess and trying to goad CineStill into a lawsuit.
3. It's all a misinterpretation that went too far too fast.
I'd use Hanlon's razor to suggest it's most likely option 3.
@LearnFilmPhotography I think if it were a mistake on catlabs part they'd probably have taken the post down. I do think they tried to goad them into a lawsuit based on that CS sent an informal notice then CatLabs told CS to send an official cease and desist. CatLabs is local to me and the people who work there are delightful but the owner has a really bad attitude.
What's a bit irritating is that Cinestill seems to have got their fingers into Kodak's relaunch of their chemistry products, which is being made by a subcontractor in Michigan, instead of Sinopromise out of China. I see CS as a good webmarketer, who has done some good things for the film photo world, but they definitely stubbed their toe with the 800T situation.
Anyone with the least bit of imagination could have come up with a more unique name for their 800T product. I wasn't a real fan of CS films before this, because I don't shoot a lot of pics of gas stations at night. I did support their 400D project, but being a bit cheap, I can't say that I feel like I need to spend $15 for a roll of film that halates. Tungsten balanced film in daylight does not appeal to me. I'm old school, and that sh...stuff needs an 85 filter to use in daylight. I can spool my own 50D, process myself and deal with the remjet. I've also slit, respooled and shot 65mm in 120 size.
I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to spend a bunch of money to buy out cinestill. It's a niche product in a very niche market, which tends to be rather price sensitive. Look at Europe, where nobody understands what's going on with Tetanol, Agfa and its sisters/offspring (ORWO, Adox ?). Film for photography only seems to work as a passion project (Ferrania) and/or as a project for someone that doesn't have much better to do (Kodak, Harman/ Ilford, Foma), and who seems to make it work, mainly out of sheer momentum. Then you have Fuji, you @#$% bunch of quitters!
You make a lot of good points here! How hard was it for you to cut down cinema film into 120 format?
@@LearnFilmPhotography fairly miserable. I had to 3d print a custom setup film slitter, which cut off 2mm on each side of the film. You have to pull the film just right, to keep from shredding the sprockets. Then spool onto recycled backing paper. And getting 65mm film isn't exactly easy. But I enjoy doing stupid things with my photography. Easier to buy premade from reflxlabs and ship from China.
@@LearnFilmPhotography and like you, I've seen the cinestill FUD on ECN2, and I don't quite get it. It mainly centers around sulfuric acid as a stop bath and pot. ferricynide as a bleaching agent, neither of which HAS to be used.
@maf421 that sounds incredibly frustrating! I don't think I have the patience for that process 😂
ISO number and either D or T are descriptive terms. They cannot be trademark and thus aren't. The 800T trademark is so obviously wrong that is must be considered invalid, i.e. like it never existed.
I was one of the early adopters and liked Cinestill for quite some time... Now I boycott them. I will never buy another roll until they stop this bullshit.
i recently printed ECN-2 processed 250D optically via RA-4 Process and the results were absolutely lovely. Just saying for the 1% of you who wants to try it out for yourself :)
Was it more challenging than a C-41 processed negative? This is actually something the Wright Brothers bring up a lot when they talk about ECN-2.
@@LearnFilmPhotography It was the same. Balancing the color out was the usual process. The colors on the print are absolutely lovely and the low contrast of the negative even helps with optically printing. Because modern C41-Negatives are almost always too contrasty for RA-4 Printing. I would be happy to print more ECN-2 processed negatives in the future.
Only one caveat: The grain on 250D Vision 3 is so small, i had to use a Ilford HP5 negative, to focus the negativ on the paper.
That's amazing to hear! So there's an even smaller downside to ECN-2 than I thought. I agree, even for scanning, I often find C41 negatives too contrasty and too saturated. So it makes sense that would affect printing as well.
The fact is that Cinestill doesn't own any proprietary technology and doesn't do anything that others can't do.
Technically other companies can take Kodak Cine film, respool it, remove the remjet, and sell it as photographic film.
What other companies cannot do is to use any of the names that Cinestill have. Since Cinestill owns the copyright. Cinestill is trying to make more money and do better business, which makes sense.
I have nothing against Cinestill, as I still like and use their films. Other companies need to make new brand names, then they can essentially sell the same product if they want to. Or a copyright dispute needs to be solved at court.
What I don't understand is why Kodak doesn't produce C41 cine film without remjet themselves; thus wiping out Cinestill and everyone else as they could sell the film directly to customers for less than the re-packers.
That's the thing, Kodak actually does sell their cinema film for photographers. Portra 400 is almost exactly the same as Kodak Vision 3 250D, which the Wright brothers, who founded CineStill, admitted in the clip from the Kodakery Podcast at 45:47 in the video. It's not exactly the same, but it's very close - and I'm not sure if the only difference is the remjet/or anti-static layer.
@@LearnFilmPhotography Ah good to know. I always thought that Porta was its own emulsion totally seperate to the cinefilms, rather than the same thing.
Yup, never buying cinestill again. I'd rather just buy the motion picture film
Thanks for this info. I'm just going back to shoot film after a 12 years and I would never want to buy film from such a scammy company.
Definitely still using Cinestill regardless, they made 800T popular to consumers and definitely should trademark it. Everyone else should rename that shit and move on.
Cinestill instructions are no longer in color… we now need a video on HP from you😂
Oh what? They're not even in color anymore? That's lame. They used to also give you a waterproof push/pull chart in the CineStill kits, which was very cool. But that stopped, too. And that HP video could be a possibility! Maybe on a different channel, though.
@@LearnFilmPhotography I kept the instruction from the first c41 kit I ordered from them because the quality of the printing keeps going down and push/pull chart is missing.
I not to the point of never using Cinestill again, but the misleading marketing, poor instruction quality, issues with their E6 kit, all lead me to seek alternatives.
No more cinestill for me 🙅🏻♂️
I’m switching to other repackers as they are getting better and cheaper too
That's the magic formula. If it's cheaper, people will buy it.
I used my last cinestill only to make tests for an alternative.
And there are many.
Bye cinestill, you were great and then you were not anymore.
Which alternatives are you using?
@@LearnFilmPhotography reformed lab is a good alternative they also have 320t( Kodak 200t )
@@shaynecosby5625 I'll take a look at them! Thanks for the recommendation.
Umi 800 is really nice