Film review motion picture film for photography: Kodak Vision3 200T/250D/500T, Fuji Eterna 250D, Fuji Reala 500D

This piece is about experience of home developing and scanning motion picture films Kodak Vision3, 250D, 200T, 500T and Fuji Eterna 250D, Reala 500D with remjet layer.

The reason on embarking on this experient is that my stock of high speed film ISO (800) Fuji NPZ/Pro800Z for 35mm is down to three rolls of 35mm. I looked into stocking up with some fresh ISO400/800, only to find the price level was quite high in UK £10+ for single roll (36 frames). Motion picture rolls (30 frames) like Kodak Vision3 500T and Fuji Reala 500D with the remjet still on the film can be had around £5 per roll.  The motion picture films should be developed in a processed called ECN-2 , which is different to the normal C41 we use for colour negatives or E6 for slide film. Motion picture labs (processing ECN-2) normally dont take a 36 roll of film, the machine is not setup for that small amount.
Note that motion picture film cannot be processed by your normal C41 lab as the films have the remjet on, it will clog up/contaminate the processor. There is a variant of this from Cinestill film that is the Kodak Vision3 500T respooled with remjet pre-removed, and can be processed in a normal C41 processor but that sends the price per roll back up to £10. The general view seems to be that one has a colour cast that is somewhat difficult to manage when using processing in C41 with pre-removed remjet.

Wondering what remjet is? It is a black carbon layer on the non-emulsion film to protect it and reduce halo effects on motion picture film.

I came across Nik and Trick Services/Photographiques selling a variety of films types. They also offered advice to process the film in RA4 developer as a hack to the normal C41 process, ie using the bleach, fix and stabilizer from the C41 development kit. The RA4 developer has the same color developer compoent as the ECN-2 developer namely CD3. According to Nik and Trick this will reduce the color cast. To facilitate this Nik and Trick sells a chemical kit with the remjet remover from ECN-2 and RA4 developer to mix up one liter for developer at £9. As I had a Fuji Hunt X-Press C41 kit where the developer had gone bad, I saw the opportunity.

As I was on the trip to explore what would work best for me I ordered five different films to test:

• Fuji Eterna 250D
• Fuji Reala 500D
• Kodak Vision3 250D
• Kodak Vision3 200T
• Kodak Vision3 500T

Developing the film

With the  RA4/Remjet removal kit came instructions: see here

For me that meant this based on the Fuji Hunt C41 X-press kit with RA4 developer.

All steps were done in a rotary processor at 38degC.

I mixed up the liter for RA4 and remjet solution and split it in 500ml bottles.

Step 1: 30s in remjet removal bath

Step 2: wash in water a few time until the water becomes clear.
            I pour in water, let it rotate for 15-20s and pour out and repeat until clear

Step 3: 3min in RA4

Step 4: 6:30min in C41 Bleach

Step 5: 3:30min wash

Step 6: 6:30min in C41 Fix

Step 7: 6x1min wash

Step 8: For Kodak films (no need for Fuji in my experience):
        a:Take out the film from the reel

        b:carefully wipe down the non-emulsion side of the film with a clean, wet, soft, non black,  micro fibre cloth. Take care not to touch or scratch the emulsion side.

        c:rinse the micro fibre cloth clean and repeat until no more black residue on the cloth

        d:put the film back on the reel. This may require you to dry the reel with eg a hairdryer for the loading function to work. Steel reels does not require this.

Step 9: 1:20min stabilizer

First roll I processed according to the above description was Fuji Eterna 250D. I did step 8 for it as well but there was no remjet on the micro fibre cloth so I concluded that this is not necessary for Fuji films. This was further verified when I skipped step 8 for a roll of Fuji Reala 500D and with no remjet on the film.
On the other hand with Kodak you cannot skip this. The remjet solution in step 1 does not remove all remjet, you do need to wipe down systematic and carefully. On one of the Kodak films I think was was too light handed. At scan time I could detect spots which I believe was residual remjet.

Developer exhaustion

As I was experimenting with both motion picture film and normal film in the RA4 developer I was also able to determine when the developer is exhausted for mixed use. Note that this refers for 500ml of developer.

First there seems to be no need to do any compensation for the first 6 rolls of 135/120 film. I did increase the development time by 15s on film 4 though the developer which was the Kodak Vision3 250D and it came out what looks like pushed +1/2 to +1 stop, so I backed it back down to 3min for the remaining rolls.

At roll 7 (Fuji NPH 120) I could see that it looked somewhat under exposed but was not sure if it was the camera metering or the developer. By roll 8 (another roll of Fuji NPH 120) it was clear that the developer was reaching exhaustion, it looked grainy and under exposed.

All processing was done within one months time and the developer bottle was top filled with water each time to avoid oxygen to touch it in between the development.

It seems that one can process 6 rolls per 500ml of 135/120 film without extending the processing time. After that either the developer is to be considered to be exhausted or some time compensation needs to be added.

Inspecting the negatives

When inspecting the negatives after development you will find the Kodak ones looks very much like normal negative film. insert photo

The Fuji's on the other hand look very "thin".

Fuji Reala 500D on the left, Kodak Vision3 250D on the right.

Scanning

I did shoot one or two calibration frames with QP203 and an IT8.7 target to be able to create custom film profiles in Silverfast AI and Vuescan. While they were good to have to ensure good results I also experimented with the built in profiles. It seems both brands use film formulas similar for their pro films and motion picture films, this meaning the Fuji Eterna 250 and Reala 500D scans well with the Fuji Pro160 profile and the Kodak Vision3 250D, 200T, 500T scans well with Kodak Portra 160NC in Silverfast. The results from the "standard" profiles were very close to the custom profiles..
This is good news, no difficult blue color cast as been reported from some users developing ECN2 film in C41 process. Also clear is that each brand seems to stick with their own profile.

However tungsten film is not daylight film. I found Vision3 200T and 500T difficult to get produce good results under daylight. I tried with (85A+81A) and w/o filter.


Fuji Eterna 250D, custom Eterna profile vs Pro160 profile in Silverfast

Fuji Reala 500D samples

Kodak Vision3 250D samples

Kodak Vision3 200T samples

Kodak Vision3 500T samples

Note on the physical film quality: The films had quality issues. Fine scratches along the motion direction. My camera did not cause it, I checked by switching between different cameras during the tests, also normal C41 film did not show any scratch marks. I doubt it was my handling of the film either, as the Fuji (that did not require any wipe down) and the Kodaks (which do require the remjet wipe down), both suffered. I still don't know what caused it but I can guess that either the bulkloader that was used loading the cassettes caused it or maybe these were end bits that had actually run through some equipment at some point.

Did I find what I was looking for? A direct replacement for Fuji Pro800Z?

Hmm maybe not.
The Fujis were easy to process as the remjet just came off without the need for wipe down any remjet.
The Fuji Reala 500D was probably the closest to what I was looking for. The looks of it is in my eyes close to Fuji Superia XTRA400.
However I also discovered during this experiment that Reala 500D and Eterna 250D are no longer produced so no fresh source of this. So this put them out of the game.

The Kodak films are still produced.
Kodak Vision3 500T is the fast film in the Vision3 family. It is not a bad film but it did not appeal to me, cant put my finger on it but I think it has to do with the tungsten balance, filter or no filter on the camera did not really make any difference. Maybe I will try it again, maybe not.
This also goes for Kodak Vision3 200T, this film I will for sure not buy again. It seems to have less latitude than 500T and I had more trouble with daylight shots with it.

Kodak Vision3 250D is though a keeper. I like the colors. Maybe pushing this one to ISO500/1000 is the way forward.

Update July 2019 I did revisit Vision3 500T: revisiting-kodak-vision3-500t-with-proper-ECN-2

Update Aug 2019 I did test to push Vision3 250D: pushing-kodak-vision3-250d-ie500

C41 film in CD3 (RA4 developer)

I have read about developing C41 film in CD3 developer from the RA4 process before in a number of forums but very few samples were posted and lots of arguments among the authorities on development and some enthusiastic free thinkers willing to experiment claiming success.
I stumbled into this DIY experiment after acquiring some RA4 as a hack to my C41 chemicals to process ECN-2 film. By mistake I loaded the wrong roll on to the reel. When I opened my changing bag I saw the canister of a Fuji NPZ instead of the Fuji Eterna that I intended to process. As I was out of C41 developer, I stood in front of the decision to either reattach the film to the canister and load the Fuji Eterna, or just go for it. I did the latter.

Processing

The processing was done in a rotary processor at 38degC.

Step 1: 3min in RA4

Step 2: 6:30min in C41 Bleach

Step 3: 3:30min wash

Step 4: 6:30min in C41 Fix

Step 5: 3min wash

Step 6: 1:20min stabilizer

Apart from the CD3 from RA4 the other steps used C41 chemicals from a Fuji Hunt C41 kit, where the developer (CD4) had gone bad.

Scanning

So how what was the result? Well, ocular inspection of the film looked normal.

The film was shot at EI400, which is how I normally rate my expired Fuji NPZ.

I occasionally shoot calibration shots, unfortunately I had not done it this time as I did not plan for this first C41 film in RA4.  After this initial trial, I did shoot three more rolls of Fuji Pro400H and NPH in RA4 developer with calibration shots which I used to create a profile for this more systematic test (see Second Round below). I was pretty certain that with film calibration the results would be good, but what about standard C41 color conversion? Below I have taken the same framed scanned/converted it with Silverfast and Vuescan with different settings.

As you can see, the result varies. I think while none of the is impossible to adjust to satisfaction in Lightroom. I would select (C) or (D) as starting point. The skin tones look natural, there is some small cast that needs to be address but in general quite OK. (F) might look good at a first glance but is over saturated, even if saturation is brought back the skin tone does not look right, and  it also suffers some loss of shadow details.  (E) also suffers loss of shadow detail.

Interesting is that correcting (A) (the one with heavy magenta cast) is down to two corrections.  Just change the white point for blue and green in Lightroom and the cast is gone. A slight hint of magenta cast still can be spotted but many Fuji films have this characteristic.

 

                

It seems strange that Silverfast gets this wrong. According to the histogram there seems to be almost no samples in the top 15% of the range for the blue and green component. Maybe CD3 uses 15% smaller space for green and blue and Silverfast profiles are operating with some pre known knowledge in which range the color samples can be found?? (note I did not touch the "auto tolerance" which does improve the result somewhat)




There is a contradiction the sample material if you are looking for what CD3 (RA developer) instead of CD4 (C41 developer) does to the negative.
With Vuescan the most color accurate one (F) was converted with a C41 NPZ ICC film profile that I created in Vuescan based on a IT8 target in a Fuji NPZ frame from a previous roll developed in C41. It would lead one to believe that CD4 and CD3 produces the same result. However the worst color accuracy is (A) based on using the Fuji NPZ profile in Silverfast (w/o CCR). The result becomes better with CCR turned on, which is probably closer to the Vuescan autolevel feature does to the processing. My guess is that CD3 (RA4 developer) changes the dye components density, confusing the Software which part of the scan range for each color (RGB) to apply the curve to. When the start and end points are correctly located for each color the response (curve) remains similar between the two developers. What this experiment does not tell is if that start to end piece of the range is larger or smaller just that when the range is located the response curve is correct applied to that range. I have no experience trying to produce a print with photo paper in RA4 process so I cant tell if this matters for this.

decode key
SF = Silverfast
VS = Vuescan
SF NPZ C41 profile  = Standard Silverfast Fuji NPZ profile
VS NPZ C41 profile = Custom calibration profile for Fuji NPZ developed in C41 created in Vuescan based on a IT8 target. You will not have it unless you create it yourself.
Pro400H RA4 profile = Custom calibration profile for Fuji pro400H developed in CD3 (RA4 developer as this blog entry describes) created in Silverfast AI based on a QP203 target.
You will not have it in SF unless you create it yourself.
CCR = Color Cast Removal in Silverfast language
autolevel = one of the methods in Vuescan to manage white balance 
Generic = Generic profile for C41 film not brand to type related

Going indoors

In the mixed lighting, the CCR in Silverfast needs to be turned on to reduce the cast.
In my mind (I) is the best base to start from. 

Second round

Encouraged by the partial success I decided to tryout with some expired Fuji Pro400H that I exposed at EI200. Processing was done as described above. With some more attention to avoiding water marks this time and also adding calibration shots.

As a the template for the calibration I used the Fuji NPH profile in Silverfast AI and calibrated the grey scale patches on a QP203 card. I also added a IT8 target in the calibration shot to create a calibrated ICC profile in Vuescan.

This time there is no doubt (A) is the best starting point for further processing.

Final thoughts

Is it possible to develop film in CD3 (developer for RA4)? The answer is yes.
Will scanning software Vuescan/Silverfast be able to produce usable scans with the built-in profiles? The answer is yes, but autolevel/ccr or manual tweaking is needs to be applied.
For best results I have to admit custom calibrated profile's are needed.

Should I continue to develop C41 film in CD3 (RA4 developer)? This is not a clear cut. While it is possible to produce good end results, I am hesitating as it is sort of proprietary and require calibration to achieve high quality color results. What if one try to rescan w/o having the tools for calibration at a later stage? I am less concerned over the often claimed issue of going through a paper printing process due to different color response on the intermediate negative as I (or someone else) unlikely will ever do that with my shots.

PS

Working with all setting in Silverfast and Vuescan can produce better starting positions in Lightroom but I seldom do as a part of my work flow. Only with tricky negatives and slides I work more inside the scan tools, all other work I prefer doing in Lightroom as it is easier to experiment and change the mind.

Techie notes
All frames were scanned with a Microtek M1 using Silverfast AI Studio 6.6.
Vuescan converted images was first scanned with Silverfast in raw mode "48 bit HDR Color" as Lasersoft calls it. Output from Silverfast was set to Adobe RGB TIF files(all negfix profiles as based on Adobe RGB in Silverfast)

In Silverfast I applied each profile, I wanted to test, to the scan and used image auto adjust. No other changes in Silverfast. The Silverfast images are prefixed with SF.

In Vuescan I loaded the frame and used the generic film profile and did variations using autolevel/fluorescent (where applicable) and selected no film ICC vs IT8 calibrated film ICC profiles. Output profile was set to Adone RGB in TIF files.

I did manual exposure adjustments in Lightroom to make them look similar bright. 

The "contact sheets" were produced in Lightroom through the print to file function with SRGB output.