Ecn2 means it's cinema film, not photography film. The reason most labs can't process it is because of the remjet, which is a thin layer of carbon which helps with halation, lubrification and static electricity in movie cameras. It's normally removed with water jets before developping the film, but since photography film doesn't have remjet, machines designed to develop photography film doesn't remove it, and it ruins the chemicals and sometimes the machine itself. Nice people don't send ecn2 film to an unsuspecting lab. Whoever made this camera isn't a nice person. You could try to develop it at home since it's fairly easy to remove the remjet and it can be cross processed in c41 without too many issues but that would require getting the equipment, buying the chemistry and keeping it at the correct temperature and finding enough film to completely use the chemistry.
I'm glad the lab caught it was ECN2 then. Why in the world would they use cinema film instead of photo film? Seems almost intentionally made to be a paperweight to anyone who would legit be interested.
@@camera-guy From what I know based on the Temu film market, that roll of film might actually be from Kodak, companies are just rebranding it. Now I have not done a proper research on this subject, but they probably used cinema film because it's a lot cheaper since no one uses them anymore and are going to wastelands otherwise.
@@sanrageclub6851 Kodak are the only remaining manufacturer of cinema film, and companies like whomever made this camera probably use it because it's much cheaper than equivalent photography film, when bought in bulk reels and loaded for stills afterwards. It is not going to the wastelands as you suggest though, celluloid is still (relatively) widely used in professional filmmaking, though certainly not the extent it once was.
@@sanrageclub6851I believe cinema film is cheaper because it is produced in greater quantities, since you're burning through at least 24 exposures per second.
@@camera-guy Kodak sells their cinema film in bulk so companies buy it and load it into (most often) 36 exposure canisters. The ones that do this properly, i.e. Cinestill, remove the remjet (ECN-2) layer before selling the bulk rolled film. Some don't do this to save money and time and people who bulk roll their own film often also develop it at home, where, as mentioned by another commenter, it's only slightly more effort if you already have all the C-41 chemistry and equipment
Making film cameras suck is kind of an achievement in itself, we've had disposable cameras since the 80s and those work perfectly fine, so were kid cameras that were offered in like Happy Meals or in cereal box, so... kudos for that I guess.
ECN2 has already been explained but the “10 frames” is probably literal and not how many can be shot. As in there’s 10 frames on the spool, first three go to loading and last two hold it to the spool and will never make it to the shutter curtain, so you’re left with five shootable frames. Side note on ECN2, it’s used like this because it’s cheaper than photo film and often bought in bulk secondhand (sometimes expired) and respooled onto 35mm film rolls and then resold as cheap photo film. I know one of *my* local labs can handle ECN2, but that’s definitely a rarity and most can’t and won’t take it.
So it didn't break, it's just... Legal false advertising? I think that's worse. As for the ECN2, good to know that even if I did get it developed, there's a chance it was expired. The more comments I get from people who actually know film, the worse this whole thing gets.
i like how the last two cameras on this camera-specific channel have both been unable to take a single usable photo lol unrelated but i'd love to see you also cover a camera you actually like and enjoy using one of these days
My God, with 10 bucks you can buy an old soviet camera and have a great time with it, unlike this potato made out of cheap plastic. Though I did love the video:)
Last year I tried a roll of the Five Below film and let’s just say I’m glad I learned what ECN-2 film is. Five Below should’ve done their research when it comes to what film is out there and what development processes they go through. I have 2 labs that I recommend that can process ECN-2 1.) Midwest Film Co. 2.) Dunwoody Photo (Atlanta Film Co.)
I don't even fully blame five below because they're just doing whatever you call dropshipping with a physical store. I'm still mad that the box says nothing about ECN-2 though. If I ever go back to this camera I'll have to use of of those labs. Thanks!
Tried picking one of these up for a trip with my wife to Brazil, halfway through we got it out of the box and went through the process of finding a battery for it, only to find out that the film had torn and would not even advance straight out of the box, it was just directly completely useless. I also had it confused with the $5 one, this one does not seem designed to replace the film, it is disposable in every sense of the word
I bought an "action camera" at one of those bargain bin places. It has several resolution options but only records at 640x480 and the battery lasts about two minutes, max.
Yup you're better off shooting on a disposable film camera or a cheap re-loadable/reusable plastic film camera + reputable brand film like everyone suggests. In a similar note, I have shot a roll of Five Below B&W film on my Olympus Pen (The OG) after seeing Sweet Lou Photography's video on the Five Below B&W film stock. Its fine but I only got 7.5 shots out of the 10 shots Lou reported or 20 shots as I was hoping as a half frame shooter. Oh and no complaints from the lab but whoever supplied unsuspecting Five Below customer with an hard to develop film that is ECN2 is evil and sly.
I wonder if the camera didn't actually break but instead only had 5 shots out of 10 advertised? That would be the cherry on top of the poo that is this camera. Didn't know 5 below also sold just film, might have to go back and see what other camera "goodies" they're hiding.
@@camera-guy oh yeah yeastorday i bought that camera and the next day i unboxed it the roll of film was not in cannestor. and then made a video about it
Ecn2 means it's cinema film, not photography film.
The reason most labs can't process it is because of the remjet, which is a thin layer of carbon which helps with halation, lubrification and static electricity in movie cameras.
It's normally removed with water jets before developping the film, but since photography film doesn't have remjet, machines designed to develop photography film doesn't remove it, and it ruins the chemicals and sometimes the machine itself.
Nice people don't send ecn2 film to an unsuspecting lab. Whoever made this camera isn't a nice person.
You could try to develop it at home since it's fairly easy to remove the remjet and it can be cross processed in c41 without too many issues but that would require getting the equipment, buying the chemistry and keeping it at the correct temperature and finding enough film to completely use the chemistry.
I'm glad the lab caught it was ECN2 then. Why in the world would they use cinema film instead of photo film? Seems almost intentionally made to be a paperweight to anyone who would legit be interested.
@@camera-guy From what I know based on the Temu film market, that roll of film might actually be from Kodak, companies are just rebranding it. Now I have not done a proper research on this subject, but they probably used cinema film because it's a lot cheaper since no one uses them anymore and are going to wastelands otherwise.
@@sanrageclub6851 Kodak are the only remaining manufacturer of cinema film, and companies like whomever made this camera probably use it because it's much cheaper than equivalent photography film, when bought in bulk reels and loaded for stills afterwards. It is not going to the wastelands as you suggest though, celluloid is still (relatively) widely used in professional filmmaking, though certainly not the extent it once was.
@@sanrageclub6851I believe cinema film is cheaper because it is produced in greater quantities, since you're burning through at least 24 exposures per second.
@@camera-guy Kodak sells their cinema film in bulk so companies buy it and load it into (most often) 36 exposure canisters. The ones that do this properly, i.e. Cinestill, remove the remjet (ECN-2) layer before selling the bulk rolled film. Some don't do this to save money and time and people who bulk roll their own film often also develop it at home, where, as mentioned by another commenter, it's only slightly more effort if you already have all the C-41 chemistry and equipment
I love alternate universe dank pods haha ♡
Photographer Dankpods, my favourite kind of Dankpods
Making film cameras suck is kind of an achievement in itself, we've had disposable cameras since the 80s and those work perfectly fine, so were kid cameras that were offered in like Happy Meals or in cereal box, so... kudos for that I guess.
It's honestly impressive
ECN2 has already been explained but the “10 frames” is probably literal and not how many can be shot. As in there’s 10 frames on the spool, first three go to loading and last two hold it to the spool and will never make it to the shutter curtain, so you’re left with five shootable frames.
Side note on ECN2, it’s used like this because it’s cheaper than photo film and often bought in bulk secondhand (sometimes expired) and respooled onto 35mm film rolls and then resold as cheap photo film.
I know one of *my* local labs can handle ECN2, but that’s definitely a rarity and most can’t and won’t take it.
So it didn't break, it's just... Legal false advertising? I think that's worse. As for the ECN2, good to know that even if I did get it developed, there's a chance it was expired. The more comments I get from people who actually know film, the worse this whole thing gets.
i like how the last two cameras on this camera-specific channel have both been unable to take a single usable photo lol
unrelated but i'd love to see you also cover a camera you actually like and enjoy using one of these days
My God, with 10 bucks you can buy an old soviet camera and have a great time with it, unlike this potato made out of cheap plastic. Though I did love the video:)
Yeah, the pricing doesn't even make sense in comparison to other disposable film cameras, much less a proper film camera.
Last year I tried a roll of the Five Below film and let’s just say I’m glad I learned what ECN-2 film is. Five Below should’ve done their research when it comes to what film is out there and what development processes they go through. I have 2 labs that I recommend that can process ECN-2
1.) Midwest Film Co.
2.) Dunwoody Photo (Atlanta Film Co.)
I don't even fully blame five below because they're just doing whatever you call dropshipping with a physical store. I'm still mad that the box says nothing about ECN-2 though. If I ever go back to this camera I'll have to use of of those labs. Thanks!
I pulled the lense out of one of these. Its a SUPER MACRO lense.
*the $5 camera
Oh, they made a new version of this. I have the old 5 below film camera. Absolute waste of film.
another Dank Cams episode :D
is this the non australian version of dank pods
Tried picking one of these up for a trip with my wife to Brazil, halfway through we got it out of the box and went through the process of finding a battery for it, only to find out that the film had torn and would not even advance straight out of the box, it was just directly completely useless. I also had it confused with the $5 one, this one does not seem designed to replace the film, it is disposable in every sense of the word
Wow, that's really bad.
I bought an "action camera" at one of those bargain bin places.
It has several resolution options but only records at 640x480 and the battery lasts about two minutes, max.
Sounds "high quality"!
Yup you're better off shooting on a disposable film camera or a cheap re-loadable/reusable plastic film camera + reputable brand film like everyone suggests.
In a similar note, I have shot a roll of Five Below B&W film on my Olympus Pen (The OG) after seeing Sweet Lou Photography's video on the Five Below B&W film stock. Its fine but I only got 7.5 shots out of the 10 shots Lou reported or 20 shots as I was hoping as a half frame shooter. Oh and no complaints from the lab but whoever supplied unsuspecting Five Below customer with an hard to develop film that is ECN2 is evil and sly.
I wonder if the camera didn't actually break but instead only had 5 shots out of 10 advertised? That would be the cherry on top of the poo that is this camera. Didn't know 5 below also sold just film, might have to go back and see what other camera "goodies" they're hiding.
Underrated fr
if you don't realize that's from the five beyond section
I did, doesn't make it any less dumb that a store called five below has stuff for more than $5
@ well I can agree with you on that
@@camera-guy oh yeah yeastorday i bought that camera and the next day i unboxed it the roll of film was not in cannestor. and then made a video about it
Mine came straight out of the box broken 😂
That sucks. Hope you could return it!
idk why cant they just wash off the carbon layer and do the most common developing process
Probably just not enough demand for it to be worth it to them.
good video but...... CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR PC SET UP BROTHER?! that mouse and keyboard are sending me.
2024, the year of Windows ME
@@camera-guy i was close i thought 98 xD
it literally didnt work one picture for me
1 photo, 10 photos, tomato tomahto
I got decent film cameras for dirt cheep to free
My local thrift store is practically begging people to take them, although my local antique store is selling a plastic point and shoot for $30
@ i got a few nice cameras from my school for free
E