I read most of it and I just keep getting angrier 🤬 That's like trademarking " 52" flat screen TV" because other companies could use "Flat television with 52" diagonal" to describe it instead. I'll shoot my last roll in my winter holiday and then that's that. "Potty8" ™, ® or whatever the frick looks better anyway. I just don't clean my glasses anymore to get the halations back.
Any statement except, go ahead, make and sell film as much as possible to as many people as possible is just boring to read. Cinestill has worked hard to be where it is. There’s no reason to feel insecure. Or so I thought atleast. Eh.
They can claim to have figured out Vision3 500T has a density somewhat comparable to an 800 ISO film when developed in C-41, but trying to get *exclusive* rights to describe such a product as "800T" is a huge stretch.
It's pathetic - they never should have been granted that trademark, and if challenged in court, they would immediately lose. It's like Shell copywriting "10W-30" or "Synthetic Oil", you can't do that.
Living in Japan, Caleb's statement at around the 9:43 mark of how other countries need something similar to make it cheap, is so damn true. Over here, shooting with Cinestill of any kind, is a costly endeavor, 50D and 800T are both sold at around 4,040 yen per roll at Bic Camera or Yodobashi Camera, and 400D is about 3,870 yen or so. For American tourists and visitors, buying stock with the strong dollar comparative to Yen, the pricing would be approximately the same compared to when buying film in the US, but for us Japanese consumers, who get paid in Yen, (and Japanese pay is notoriously low compared to the US) the pricing is nothing short of absurd. For comparison, for us Japanese consumers, it feels like we are paying about 40 USD per roll, and two rolls would effectively feel like 80 USD. Don't even get me started with 120 format, I saw it being sold at 4,520 yen so it feels about 45 USD. There's a company based in Osaka called Marix film, and their stressed company goal is to provide cinema film nationally as cheap as they can, and in the same shops, they sell the same product as Cinestill (remjet removed cinema film) for about 2,500 yen per 36 shot roll on average. While this is still on the expensive end of color film even with all those Kodak and Fujifilm price hikes, for those who want to shoot 800T this is a god send, and frankly, I like how they are also offering repackaged aerocolor as well as slide film for around 3,000 yen or so. Plus they always search for ways to sell stuff cheaply, such as selling 36 shot rolls of their 800T before it gets boxed and shrink wrap them for delivery, effectively selling three rolls for the price of two. Without this company, I wouldn't be able to enjoy night street photography the way I do now, and I am cautiously nervous that Cinestill is going to slap a ruinous lawsuit on this small company, I'm hopeful that due to it being overseas maybe it wouldn't be affected as much as Marix is still under the radar over in the US. And Caleb's final words of "it can only be good" is ringing so true, as this is bringing more people to use film for fun and for excitement, Marix 800T is flying off the shelf as compared to Cinestill now and it sparks joy to a lot of local users.
I want to add to this Kodak e100 in Canada is almost $50 CAD/roll I am not lying to when I say I damn near cried seeing that because I love slide film. However, just recently Downtown Camera in Toronto has been selling hand rolled e100 for $18 CAD/roll so there’s that to be excited about for now. We need more of these middle men/local stores to be doing this that way we can all enjoy shooting film at affordable prices. Competition is important.
Honestly, I’m so happy that you guys didn’t avoid the obvious big film controversy like a lot of the cinestill shooters on UA-cam are doing. I have a lot of respect for you guys and i personally don’t plan on supporting cinestill moving forward. You can’t claim to care about the community while also trying to tear It down.
Wedding day: I imagine Jason and you escape aboard a bus sitting among the startled and staring passengers. As the bus drives on, your ecstatic smiles slowly fade away as you begin to ponder the uncertain future...
Honestly i wont be supporting cinestill after all this, kodak did produce an 800 iso tungsten balanced cinema film at one time too. But as always great episode, cant wait for the next one! btw ecn-2 film like the 250d and such is so much nicer to color grade lol
I've flown domestically and haven't had a problem with the film being checked by TSA however fllying home from Amsterdam rececntly an agent there who was about 22 had no idea what the film cassettes were or why I didn't want them x-rayed. After some back and forth I finally got someone to hand check my 10 rolls of film.
I've got some Film-Safe boxes for air traveling. They were sold from hama here in Germany some time in the 90s. It's a plastic container supposedly lined with lead (but fairly light, sooo....). So far no issues.
I tried to fly with a film safe bag, inside of another bag - and when it came out the other side they were like “what the hell is this bag, empty it right now”
Peta Pixels new podcast was really great! Details re: lawsuit vs trademark defense - and where they’re required to defend their trademark, now that they have it. That said, I think it’s BONKERS that they were ever granted the trademark.
I worked as a pro already in the analogue days, and had to put E100S and E100VS and Portra 400 and 160 through airport scanners many, many times. Never had an issue. Also, on Ilford Delta is smooth a butter. Lovely stock.
I liked the use of IMAX for the Dark Knight. I think the intro bank scene and the car chase scene where the only ones shot in IMAX. I could be wrong there might have been more but it wasn't the whole movie.
Haven't had any issues re film with airport security in the US. Got some push back on hand check leaving Taiwan but luckily the 250D labels looked like 2500 😉 Coming in they were cool with not scanning film during the agriculture/food check (before customs) and even said it's okay to remove cameras. Wasn't thinking after a red-eye flight and never seen these checks before so forgot I _did_ have film in one of the cameras, which I loaded during landing because a flight attendant suggested moving seats for an amazing view lol caught off guard with all the green lights
@@musa7606 Maybe depends on the agent and how busy they are. Can't recall what the cut off ISO value for hand check was that time -- maybe 1000. Didn't mind them opening every can. I mostly had respooled 250D (fairly easy to get processed in Taiwan!) and was already expecting some light leaks, scratches, or remjet removal issues.
@@musa7606 That's great they made the time for it. IIRC, I only had four rolls that time and the agent kept saying none of them looked like high ISO film
Domke makes a lined film bag in a few different sizes that has made it much less stressful for me to fly with film. The technicians can usually just make out that it's film inside, though one time they didn't see enough detail so they flagged it for a hand check, but that's what you want anyway. I'm with some of the other commenters in that I've had rolls that have gone through several xray scanners and didn't experience any fogging, but ymmv. Watch out for the CT scanners though, they will destroy your film regardless of what ISO it is. Airports that have those installed tend to be better about hand check requests. Also don't check your film even with the lead lined bag. The checked luggage scanners are much more powerful. Happy travels!
Ugh. I'm a type 1 diabetic so I need to get all my medicine, medical devices, and film hand checked. You're right, the USA is generally pretty chill. The only issue I had was in the UK, with my medical devices even! "How do we know that's yours?" "IDK, because It's stabbed into my stomach?" Also, whenever a TSA agent tells me anything under 800 is fine, I tell then "Unfortunately, I process all my film as high-sensitivity, so they may all be affected by the x-ray machine. Sorry about that."
I came back from Copenhagen recently and they didn't hand check for me. I had 500T super 8 and Polaroid film. Still waiting on the results of the super 8 and hope it didn't get ruined by the x-rays...
I've been flying in the US and Europe quite frequently and always with a lot of film, most of the airports are fin, like London Gatwick is usually cool with hand checking film with no questions asked. However, I did had trouble in Copenhagen as well, one old guy (seems in his 60s) straight up rejected me and tried to educated me how the film gets more radiation on the plane than going thru the Xray machines. So my suggestion for international travels is to just ask for a hand check the nicest way possible and insist if they rejected it at first.
I went to Greece last year and had film from 100-800, all got X-rayed 4 times and had 0 problems. I think the carry on X-rays are not so bad, but supposedly the checked bag X-rays are much more powerful and can cause problems
Fyi- there was a run of bad Holgapans that had focus issues. Freestyle had to take a bunch of them back a couple of years ago. I had one and returned it. I checked it with a piece of ground glass and it wasn't sharp at any distance. Yours might be bad. Worth checking before you waste any more film in it.
They told me at the airport that everything below iso 800 is fine through the scanner. This is not true, some of those rolls look super expired (they were fresh) and all the Lomo rolls I had were totally toast. They had weird patterns all over, also on the unexposed parts of the negative, so it wasn’t the camera. So guys, always try to let them handcheck all of it.
"Explosive residue" is a shitty term, if you look up the chemical formula of detonation, the output is shit like carbon dioxide, which is everywhere. On top of that, the actual list of all potential testable materials is massive, because to make it remotely reliable they need to use pre-detonation compounds. The mos common method of screening (idk what that airport uses) is a form of spectometry, (e.g. mass spec, or ion spec). The problem is while it can be super sensitive it can also have false positives that are not talked about. Now film uses silver nitrate, and nitrates are one of the most common explosive compound additives as a highly stable oxidizer. On top of that there are a lot of chemical used to manufacture film that could have left trace residue. Its incredibly unlikely but non zero that some combination of these chemicals and random noise in the sensor caused the false positive.
We all make mistakes, shit happens, but how Cinestill is handling this is what leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Which sucks because their redscale film is top tier. I did most of my thesis with that film.
Man shame you guys were like, two days short of the Lomp price cut announcement :V That probably would've added some hype considering how much you were talking about Lomo 800
Not that I took a side, but Cinestill is not an 800 speed film. 800T was a descriptor, but it was a description of 500 speed tungten-film that has been pre-processed. Cinestill calls it "premoval" of the remjet. Revolog pre-processes film to make it allign with certain colors and use "nm" to refer to their colors. Color can be physically measured in nanometer wavelengths, but referring to film as an arbitrary "nm" number is something that only revolog has done as a descriptor of their product post-processing.
Guys, I got a direct response from Cinestill with a form letter explaining that they have the trademark and that it is in their interest to defend their trademark. It is confirmed that they are trying to own the term 800T, and they were granted that trademark by idiots in the government. The cat labs response that their lawyer sent back was that the 800T trademark was granted in error and if Cinestill tried to take any legal action they would promptly lose in court.
How exactly is that trademark a bad thing when the 800T is synonymous with Cinestill at this point. That's probably how they were granted it in the first place, say "800T" and you automatically think of Cinestill not these 3rd party resellers and that's how trademarks work. Hell Facebook has a trademark for the word "Home" now that's generic AF!
I agree, cinestill's position most likely includes that their product and marketing is what got people interested in remjet-less motion picture film. And people who are offering the same vision 3 stock are only doing it because cinestill created the market demand. You just call something a different name, it's how the game is played.@@Caballeroshot
@@Caballeroshot It is literally against the law to grant trademark rights to technical terms. The 800T combination of numbers and letters has signified 800 isophym with tungsten color since not long after the availability of color negative film on the market. Just as you cannot trademark the term V8 engine, or red car, you cannot trademark 800T. If anyone was to actually take them to court on this it would be an insta loss because it is not trademarkable, any lawyer would know that. They are abusing an illegal trademark to stifle competition and that is not good for anyone.
@@Caballeroshot You saw the story about the small time seller on eBay that Cinestill have forced off of eBay and out of business? I expect that seller would have some pretty explicit words about what the harm is of Cinestill's trademark abuse.
Cinestill can argue secondary meaning, and that the iso and tungsten ratings aren't actually technical descriptions of the product itself, as ISO and daylight or tungsten ratings are just suggestions made by a manufacturer, and are subjective. It's not abuse to defend a trademark (and it was legally granted to them), it's actually necessary to show a history of defending it in order to retain it. Keep studying, keep observing, my friend, and the world will make more sense. @@jw48335
definitely not supporting cinestill ever again. my money is not gonna go towards an anti-competitive business in an already small photography niche. their film has always been overpriced, the halations suck, and like Jason said shooting 500t and 250D in 120 is miles better than cinestill.
Probably an unpopular statement, but on the contrary. There’s no denying Cinestill put a lot of work(time and monetary investments) towards marketing, promoting and pushing for the 800T film for the 35/120 photography market. Yes it’s true they did not originate the look or create anything new, however they put the time and effort to make it a viable option to a market that’s dwindling as far as film supplies 6-7 years ago. People have to remember prior to it’s release the market was falling. Now that it’s picked up a little, capitalizing on its popularity and marketing a product as “800T” minimizes what Cinnestill has done while trying to survive in today’s market. I certainly can’t blame them for that alone. I do get the initial silliness of the situation, but can’t ignore the state of the world with film.
Lomo has done way more for film than Cinestill. They kept people interested and brought new people in during and immediately after the general switch to digital, they are one of the major reasons anything was left after the change.
The whole point of Cinestill selling a commodity product, Kodak Vison film, actually kind of makes the point why Cinestill doesn't want people selling products with the name 800T. Their branding is what differentiates them. To your point, they have built up a brand and quality that goes with it over the years through hard work. They don't have a unique product on the market, so their brand is their business. I can see why they would want to protect it. The PetaPixel piece did a good job actually sourcing and giving legal context to the story. Anyone can sell rebranded Kodak Vision3 500T film, Cinestill can't stop that. You can list it as tungsten balanced, ISO 800. Their trademark just means they can take action to not call the product itself 800T. That doesn't seem so egregious to me.
And by that rationale you wouldn't object when others start trademarking 250D, and 100D, and 100 ISO in general? You must realize that's idiotic. They can trademark Cinestill. They can't trademark 800T any more than Ford can trademark V8.
@@jw48335 Ford holds several trademarks for V8. It is applied to a specific marketing and branding term. Cinestill can trademark a name of a product that is distinct in the market and they have used for years. What other product named 800t has been on the market? It doesn’t mean others can’t use the technical terms to describe their product. It literally just is about a product name.
The point that somewhere else on the planet is not cheap to buy film let me give you an example. I can't buy any 110 roll let's say. To buy one from lomography it will cost me 25€ F you
Statment from Cinestill Posted after Recording - cinestillfilm.com/pages/cinestill-trademark-statement-policy
I read most of it and I just keep getting angrier 🤬
That's like trademarking " 52" flat screen TV" because other companies could use "Flat television with 52" diagonal" to describe it instead.
I'll shoot my last roll in my winter holiday and then that's that.
"Potty8" ™, ® or whatever the frick looks better anyway.
I just don't clean my glasses anymore to get the halations back.
Any statement except, go ahead, make and sell film as much as possible to as many people as possible is just boring to read. Cinestill has worked hard to be where it is. There’s no reason to feel insecure. Or so I thought atleast. Eh.
They can claim to have figured out Vision3 500T has a density somewhat comparable to an 800 ISO film when developed in C-41, but trying to get *exclusive* rights to describe such a product as "800T" is a huge stretch.
It's pathetic - they never should have been granted that trademark, and if challenged in court, they would immediately lose. It's like Shell copywriting "10W-30" or "Synthetic Oil", you can't do that.
Living in Japan, Caleb's statement at around the 9:43 mark of how other countries need something similar to make it cheap, is so damn true.
Over here, shooting with Cinestill of any kind, is a costly endeavor, 50D and 800T are both sold at around 4,040 yen per roll at Bic Camera or Yodobashi Camera, and 400D is about 3,870 yen or so. For American tourists and visitors, buying stock with the strong dollar comparative to Yen, the pricing would be approximately the same compared to when buying film in the US, but for us Japanese consumers, who get paid in Yen, (and Japanese pay is notoriously low compared to the US) the pricing is nothing short of absurd. For comparison, for us Japanese consumers, it feels like we are paying about 40 USD per roll, and two rolls would effectively feel like 80 USD. Don't even get me started with 120 format, I saw it being sold at 4,520 yen so it feels about 45 USD.
There's a company based in Osaka called Marix film, and their stressed company goal is to provide cinema film nationally as cheap as they can, and in the same shops, they sell the same product as Cinestill (remjet removed cinema film) for about 2,500 yen per 36 shot roll on average. While this is still on the expensive end of color film even with all those Kodak and Fujifilm price hikes, for those who want to shoot 800T this is a god send, and frankly, I like how they are also offering repackaged aerocolor as well as slide film for around 3,000 yen or so. Plus they always search for ways to sell stuff cheaply, such as selling 36 shot rolls of their 800T before it gets boxed and shrink wrap them for delivery, effectively selling three rolls for the price of two.
Without this company, I wouldn't be able to enjoy night street photography the way I do now, and I am cautiously nervous that Cinestill is going to slap a ruinous lawsuit on this small company, I'm hopeful that due to it being overseas maybe it wouldn't be affected as much as Marix is still under the radar over in the US.
And Caleb's final words of "it can only be good" is ringing so true, as this is bringing more people to use film for fun and for excitement, Marix 800T is flying off the shelf as compared to Cinestill now and it sparks joy to a lot of local users.
😊
@@mamiyamigos sempai noticed me 😭🔥
I want to add to this
Kodak e100 in Canada is almost $50 CAD/roll
I am not lying to when I say I damn near cried seeing that because I love slide film. However, just recently Downtown Camera in Toronto has been selling hand rolled e100 for $18 CAD/roll so there’s that to be excited about for now.
We need more of these middle men/local stores to be doing this that way we can all enjoy shooting film at affordable prices. Competition is important.
I was just yesterday thinking when are we getting a new mamiyamigos drop?? thanks for bringing xmas early.
Honestly, I’m so happy that you guys didn’t avoid the obvious big film controversy like a lot of the cinestill shooters on UA-cam are doing. I have a lot of respect for you guys and i personally don’t plan on supporting cinestill moving forward. You can’t claim to care about the community while also trying to tear It down.
Wedding day: I imagine Jason and you escape aboard a bus sitting among the startled and staring passengers. As the bus drives on, your ecstatic smiles slowly fade away as you begin to ponder the uncertain future...
We'll workshop it!
Killed me! 🤣🤣🤣
Honestly i wont be supporting cinestill after all this, kodak did produce an 800 iso tungsten balanced cinema film at one time too. But as always great episode, cant wait for the next one! btw ecn-2 film like the 250d and such is so much nicer to color grade lol
Great listen, pretty much news report for the film community
I like more when is just Caleb and Jason
We all agreed
I like it when caleb doesnt interupt the guests
@@merryharry6487i like it when you are not real and i never interact with you again
I've flown domestically and haven't had a problem with the film being checked by TSA however fllying home from Amsterdam rececntly an agent there who was about 22 had no idea what the film cassettes were or why I didn't want them x-rayed. After some back and forth I finally got someone to hand check my 10 rolls of film.
I've got some Film-Safe boxes for air traveling. They were sold from hama here in Germany some time in the 90s. It's a plastic container supposedly lined with lead (but fairly light, sooo....). So far no issues.
I tried to fly with a film safe bag, inside of another bag - and when it came out the other side they were like “what the hell is this bag, empty it right now”
@@Daniel.Walker I showed it to them beforehand (and the films inside) and then it went through the scanner.
Peta Pixels new podcast was really great! Details re: lawsuit vs trademark defense - and where they’re required to defend their trademark, now that they have it.
That said, I think it’s BONKERS that they were ever granted the trademark.
Just drove 9 hours each way to NYC last month to avoid lugging film through airports haha.
I’ve been binging and re-listening the podcasts today, this is a great way to end the day. Love this guys ❤
I worked as a pro already in the analogue days, and had to put E100S and E100VS and Portra 400 and 160 through airport scanners many, many times. Never had an issue. Also, on Ilford Delta is smooth a butter. Lovely stock.
Swifties in a parking lot are a final boss level opponent, higher than airport security
I liked the use of IMAX for the Dark Knight. I think the intro bank scene and the car chase scene where the only ones shot in IMAX. I could be wrong there might have been more but it wasn't the whole movie.
Oh wow I always wondered if my eyes were just bad cuz of the banding from Jason's vids. Good to know theyre fine lol
this video is in the top 5 titles of all time
the boys are back in town....
Haven't had any issues re film with airport security in the US. Got some push back on hand check leaving Taiwan but luckily the 250D labels looked like 2500 😉 Coming in they were cool with not scanning film during the agriculture/food check (before customs) and even said it's okay to remove cameras. Wasn't thinking after a red-eye flight and never seen these checks before so forgot I _did_ have film in one of the cameras, which I loaded during landing because a flight attendant suggested moving seats for an amazing view lol caught off guard with all the green lights
@@musa7606 Maybe depends on the agent and how busy they are. Can't recall what the cut off ISO value for hand check was that time -- maybe 1000. Didn't mind them opening every can. I mostly had respooled 250D (fairly easy to get processed in Taiwan!) and was already expecting some light leaks, scratches, or remjet removal issues.
@@musa7606 That's great they made the time for it. IIRC, I only had four rolls that time and the agent kept saying none of them looked like high ISO film
6:30 Mamousamigos ... obviously
Domke makes a lined film bag in a few different sizes that has made it much less stressful for me to fly with film. The technicians can usually just make out that it's film inside, though one time they didn't see enough detail so they flagged it for a hand check, but that's what you want anyway. I'm with some of the other commenters in that I've had rolls that have gone through several xray scanners and didn't experience any fogging, but ymmv. Watch out for the CT scanners though, they will destroy your film regardless of what ISO it is. Airports that have those installed tend to be better about hand check requests. Also don't check your film even with the lead lined bag. The checked luggage scanners are much more powerful. Happy travels!
Ugh. I'm a type 1 diabetic so I need to get all my medicine, medical devices, and film hand checked. You're right, the USA is generally pretty chill. The only issue I had was in the UK, with my medical devices even! "How do we know that's yours?" "IDK, because It's stabbed into my stomach?"
Also, whenever a TSA agent tells me anything under 800 is fine, I tell then "Unfortunately, I process all my film as high-sensitivity, so they may all be affected by the x-ray machine. Sorry about that."
I honestly love Caleb so much.
I won't purchase anything else from cinestill until the 4x5 I ordered is delivered...
I came back from Copenhagen recently and they didn't hand check for me. I had 500T super 8 and Polaroid film. Still waiting on the results of the super 8 and hope it didn't get ruined by the x-rays...
Hell yeah 250D ! It's really underrated for stills !
(10 bits is for nerds)
Never had problems with hand checks in UK. In Portugal, however, always a big NO.
Visited NYC for the 1st time ever. Rained 6 of 7 days. Shoes also ruined and discarded. Glad I wasn't the only one.
i love this podcast whish there would be more episodes:D
Sorry to hear about your Holga shots. I got this cheap Lomo rangefinder that pops onto the hotshoe. It's like the only way I use my Holga.
Never been in a darkroom, eh? Come on over and let's make some prints. Might be fun.
hell yes new ep
Good news is that Reflex and Amber are both based in China so their price is pretty good locally
where can i get my MamiyAmigo’s 799T shirt?
I've been flying in the US and Europe quite frequently and always with a lot of film, most of the airports are fin, like London Gatwick is usually cool with hand checking film with no questions asked. However, I did had trouble in Copenhagen as well, one old guy (seems in his 60s) straight up rejected me and tried to educated me how the film gets more radiation on the plane than going thru the Xray machines. So my suggestion for international travels is to just ask for a hand check the nicest way possible and insist if they rejected it at first.
developing is pretty accessible.
Make those shirts!
I had 20 rolls of 400 ISO film that I took on a trip to turkey, and they were x-rayed 8 times total on that trip. None of them had any issues.
I went to Greece last year and had film from 100-800, all got X-rayed 4 times and had 0 problems. I think the carry on X-rays are not so bad, but supposedly the checked bag X-rays are much more powerful and can cause problems
Dude, Stanstead (LDN) and Marsailles (So. FR) both made my film go through…
Bruh when was Jason in Manchester??
Is it just me or did they alternate between purposefully blurring/smudging the left and right hand sides of the wide shots?
Im in for a 799 tee! Whens that happeneing??
I would definitely get that. Make it a red shirt with a white text and maybe a black version with red text.
Caleb @17:03 what’s this laser pointer of which you speak.
Fyi- there was a run of bad Holgapans that had focus issues. Freestyle had to take a bunch of them back a couple of years ago. I had one and returned it. I checked it with a piece of ground glass and it wasn't sharp at any distance. Yours might be bad. Worth checking before you waste any more film in it.
Oohhh a peek behind the curtain. Jason flew into Manchester… the Ilford factory isn’t far from Manchester, coincidence? I don’t think so.
They told me at the airport that everything below iso 800 is fine through the scanner. This is not true, some of those rolls look super expired (they were fresh) and all the Lomo rolls I had were totally toast. They had weird patterns all over, also on the unexposed parts of the negative, so it wasn’t the camera. So guys, always try to let them handcheck all of it.
l'll take your fridge of film so you can start fresh!
"Explosive residue" is a shitty term, if you look up the chemical formula of detonation, the output is shit like carbon dioxide, which is everywhere. On top of that, the actual list of all potential testable materials is massive, because to make it remotely reliable they need to use pre-detonation compounds. The mos common method of screening (idk what that airport uses) is a form of spectometry, (e.g. mass spec, or ion spec). The problem is while it can be super sensitive it can also have false positives that are not talked about.
Now film uses silver nitrate, and nitrates are one of the most common explosive compound additives as a highly stable oxidizer. On top of that there are a lot of chemical used to manufacture film that could have left trace residue. Its incredibly unlikely but non zero that some combination of these chemicals and random noise in the sensor caused the false positive.
We all make mistakes, shit happens, but how Cinestill is handling this is what leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Which sucks because their redscale film is top tier. I did most of my thesis with that film.
Man shame you guys were like, two days short of the Lomp price cut announcement :V
That probably would've added some hype considering how much you were talking about Lomo 800
Not that I took a side, but Cinestill is not an 800 speed film. 800T was a descriptor, but it was a description of 500 speed tungten-film that has been pre-processed. Cinestill calls it "premoval" of the remjet. Revolog pre-processes film to make it allign with certain colors and use "nm" to refer to their colors. Color can be physically measured in nanometer wavelengths, but referring to film as an arbitrary "nm" number is something that only revolog has done as a descriptor of their product post-processing.
Have Monica learn k-14
According to the PetaPixel podcast, the trademark situation is that they are obligated to defend the trademark or they lose it.
No one made them trademark it though and it shouldn't have been trademarked in the first place so that's sort of missing the entire point.
Guys, I got a direct response from Cinestill with a form letter explaining that they have the trademark and that it is in their interest to defend their trademark. It is confirmed that they are trying to own the term 800T, and they were granted that trademark by idiots in the government. The cat labs response that their lawyer sent back was that the 800T trademark was granted in error and if Cinestill tried to take any legal action they would promptly lose in court.
How exactly is that trademark a bad thing when the 800T is synonymous with Cinestill at this point. That's probably how they were granted it in the first place, say "800T" and you automatically think of Cinestill not these 3rd party resellers and that's how trademarks work. Hell Facebook has a trademark for the word "Home" now that's generic AF!
I agree, cinestill's position most likely includes that their product and marketing is what got people interested in remjet-less motion picture film. And people who are offering the same vision 3 stock are only doing it because cinestill created the market demand. You just call something a different name, it's how the game is played.@@Caballeroshot
@@Caballeroshot It is literally against the law to grant trademark rights to technical terms. The 800T combination of numbers and letters has signified 800 isophym with tungsten color since not long after the availability of color negative film on the market. Just as you cannot trademark the term V8 engine, or red car, you cannot trademark 800T. If anyone was to actually take them to court on this it would be an insta loss because it is not trademarkable, any lawyer would know that. They are abusing an illegal trademark to stifle competition and that is not good for anyone.
@@Caballeroshot You saw the story about the small time seller on eBay that Cinestill have forced off of eBay and out of business? I expect that seller would have some pretty explicit words about what the harm is of Cinestill's trademark abuse.
Cinestill can argue secondary meaning, and that the iso and tungsten ratings aren't actually technical descriptions of the product itself, as ISO and daylight or tungsten ratings are just suggestions made by a manufacturer, and are subjective. It's not abuse to defend a trademark (and it was legally granted to them), it's actually necessary to show a history of defending it in order to retain it. Keep studying, keep observing, my friend, and the world will make more sense. @@jw48335
definitely not supporting cinestill ever again. my money is not gonna go towards an anti-competitive business in an already small photography niche. their film has always been overpriced, the halations suck, and like Jason said shooting 500t and 250D in 120 is miles better than cinestill.
when are you going to do more of these
Probably an unpopular statement, but on the contrary. There’s no denying Cinestill put a lot of work(time and monetary investments) towards marketing, promoting and pushing for the 800T film for the 35/120 photography market. Yes it’s true they did not originate the look or create anything new, however they put the time and effort to make it a viable option to a market that’s dwindling as far as film supplies 6-7 years ago. People have to remember prior to it’s release the market was falling. Now that it’s picked up a little, capitalizing on its popularity and marketing a product as “800T” minimizes what Cinnestill has done while trying to survive in today’s market. I certainly can’t blame them for that alone. I do get the initial silliness of the situation, but can’t ignore the state of the world with film.
Lomo has done way more for film than Cinestill. They kept people interested and brought new people in during and immediately after the general switch to digital, they are one of the major reasons anything was left after the change.
#christophernolanbringbackaerochrome
Marry me
Any company can track (for
The whole point of Cinestill selling a commodity product, Kodak Vison film, actually kind of makes the point why Cinestill doesn't want people selling products with the name 800T. Their branding is what differentiates them. To your point, they have built up a brand and quality that goes with it over the years through hard work. They don't have a unique product on the market, so their brand is their business. I can see why they would want to protect it. The PetaPixel piece did a good job actually sourcing and giving legal context to the story. Anyone can sell rebranded Kodak Vision3 500T film, Cinestill can't stop that. You can list it as tungsten balanced, ISO 800. Their trademark just means they can take action to not call the product itself 800T. That doesn't seem so egregious to me.
And by that rationale you wouldn't object when others start trademarking 250D, and 100D, and 100 ISO in general? You must realize that's idiotic.
They can trademark Cinestill. They can't trademark 800T any more than Ford can trademark V8.
It is comparable to a motor oil producer trademarking 10W-30.
@@jw48335 Ford holds several trademarks for V8. It is applied to a specific marketing and branding term. Cinestill can trademark a name of a product that is distinct in the market and they have used for years. What other product named 800t has been on the market? It doesn’t mean others can’t use the technical terms to describe their product. It literally just is about a product name.
The point that somewhere else on the planet is not cheap to buy film let me give you an example.
I can't buy any 110 roll let's say.
To buy one from lomography it will cost me 25€
F you
I am of the opinion, should Chris Nolan requires a special film emulsion, Kodak will make it. That goes with other creative directors.