Is Cinestill Okay? The Cinestill Controversy Explained

Cinestill seems to have soiled themselves. Over the past few weeks, the film company, Cinestill has decided that they are going to bully, and threaten smaller film retailers who sell competitor's film stocks.
Cinestill has been with us for a few years now and it's not a big mystery what they do. They don't make anything. They re-package Kodak Vision 3 500T film, remove the rem jet and then sell it as Cinestill 800T. The company's recent behaviour has caused quite the controversy in the film photography community.
In this video, I talk about all of the recent controversy surrounding Cinestill film, and what as a film photography community we should do about it.
Here's my Patreon if you'd like to donate!
/ overexposedfilm
Get your film here, and support my channel!
Velvia 50 in 35mm - amzn.to/44gnBS5
Velvia 50 in 120 - amzn.to/3D6cEXi
Velvia 100 in 35mm - amzn.to/3JRa9fg
Velvia 100 in 120 - amzn.to/3pNxZS6
Fuji 200 - amzn.to/3zlDKHF
HP5 - amzn.to/3OJXSc3
Portra 160 - amzn.to/3Q92Xfh
Portra 400 - amzn.to/3RkDJvi
#FilmPhotography #35mmfilm #FilmFormats #AnalogPhotography #cinestill800t #cinestill
Thanks so much for watching.

[@Isac3000]

I didn’t even know there were alternatives to Cinestill before this blew up. Thanks Cinestill for bringing this to my attention. 👍

[@MrJeekz]

same

[@artistjoh]

Clearly it is the Streisand Effect in play here. Not only did CineStill highlight that there are alternatives, but that lots of money can be saved buying those alternatives. Brilliant work CineStill.

[@mftran]

Excellent reason to not give Cinestill any more money.

[@janjasiewicz9851]

Simple solution for Reflx - call it 800W - (or 800 Wolfram) Wolfram is Tungsten in German.

[@OJCLDJ]

I actually really like that lol damn, i hope they do!

[@CCPotato]

It's amazing that they never took the time to weigh the opportunity cost of protecting their "trademark" vs losing all of their good will in an already niche product market.

[@renemies78]

They've lost me as customer. Attacking these smaller companies just wreaks of corporate greed. Fuck 'em.

[@Overexposed1]

That’s right. Bad business right there.

[@RobinEdgar]

The word you are looking for is "reeks", but "wreaks" *could* be a Freudian slip in that Cinestill seems to be wreaking legal havoc. . .

[@renemies78]

@@RobinEdgar Thank you for the correction.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

Cinestill has like 40 employees.... they're a small business it's not David vs Goliath... it's David vs budget David

[@ofthenearfuture]

Thanks for making this video and explaining the situation, it is frankly insane... Someone really needs to take Cinestill to court.

[@Overexposed1]

My guess is the judge that awarded the copyright protection didn’t have enough familiarity with film to make a decision. It definitely needs to be challenged.

[@skullerhead6150]

@@Overexposed1 link to buy reflex film?

[@cangooner]

I like what Flic Film does with their cinema film descriptions (I like a lot of other things Flic Film does too, but I digress... 😁) in BOLD, right under the listing for the film, saying flat-out what your are buying. E.g. For their CineColor 500T: "This is Respooled KODAK VISION3 Color Negative Film 500T. Kodak and Vision are trademarks of Eastman Kodak Company." Totally honest, no BS, and letting people know exactly what they are buying.

[@xiaodu87]

That triggers a question, that already occured to me during the video: The original film has iso 500, the respooled film has iso 800. How? Does the removal of the remjet layer enhance the sensitivity of the film?

[@Overexposed1]

This is it. You got it!

[@arkphotog]

[@SurrealExposure12]

@@xiaodu87it doesn’t. The 800t has always been a marketing stunt. The roll looks much better shot at 500. Its insane that people never question this like you did.

[@hellothisiskyle]

@@xiaodu87it’s partially marketing partially the fact that this film is being sold specifically as a C-41 film and when you cross process motion picture film in C-41 it results in a denser negative which has the effect of boosting your exposure a bit, so 800 ASA is still relatively accurate. But if you really do a deep dive into film speeds you’ll quickly find they’re all subjective and more or less suggestions based on how that film performs and not necessarily the sensitivity alone. For the true sensitivity you’d need to do some densitometer tests

[@user-co6ww2cm9k]

The film community is too small for anti-competitive bad actors to be trying to push others out. It's only a matter of time until these film stocks won't be made anymore, then all Cinestill will have to show for this charade is a bunch of bad will from their former customers and resellers.

[@RoryChapman]

absolutely agree. I already avoided Cinestill because of their dishonestly and prices, but i still would recommend them to students etc., now I will actively tell people to avoid them and recommend every other company instead. I think suppliers should do the same and pull them from the shelves too.

[@BillLovesFilm]

Excellent video! Cinestill has some decent other products IMO but the repackaged Kodak films they sell have always baffled me-primarily because you can see what a 1000ft roll of this stuff costs from B&H and deduce that they’re super vulnerable to competition who could sell it for far less money and still make a decent profit!

[@viensjteshoot]

Cinestill films is about 20€/roll in France. This is theft, nothing else. Thank you Reflx Lab you got me !

[@shanelee4094]

Well summarized. This video needs to go viral. It’s only a matter of time before Cinestill trips on themselves and face plants with this behavior.

[@ralphstark9961]

I have another example of how unoriginal CInestill is. In 1976 Seattle Film Works was founded and they offered consumers free 35mm respooled KODAK Motion picture film. You just has to pay for processing and printing. 2023-1976 = 47 years before this whole controversy!

[@antnguyen]

I'm dumbfounded to think that they didn't see type of backlash coming.

[@Photovintageguy]

The lawyers only see the money they are going to make. If the products don’t sell they don’t lose anything.

[@Girvo747]

They see, they don’t care

[@tinoderyanto7668]

yeah,imo the root of the problem is Cinestill have the trademark of the 800T and even restricted the 800 Tungsten, etc. if they keep the 800T trademarks it can be snowballing to something that limits or disrupts the ecosystem or at worst the growth of the film community. no film manufacturers trademarked their descriptive iso speed and white balance for decades, so why should we allow a company that does not even manufacturing their film from scratch by themselves to have a trademarks for this descriptive terms Edit : with reflex lab changing the name to only Reflx 800, it may potentially interfere with reflx business too, the T after iso speed is to mark the wb, and as we know a tungsten balance if shot in daylight can give a greenish/bluish color, people who don't know it's a tungsten film may got confuse if they think the film they shot is a daylight wb film as in the film normal terms, iso speed without any wb mark is a default daylight film

[@suivezlemir]

Thanks for this, I had no idea. They lost me as a customer. (+ to have a semi uncut version of your video is actually really cool haha, it's almost a behind the scene)

[@afmanalac11]

“What stock are you shooting with?” “Oh just the Reflex 3200Q. Its an 800 speed tungsten balanced film”

[@Minolta_Gal]

Completely agree with this. Thanks for explaining it. Looks like I’m gonna be a lomo gal . Unless Cinestill changes course. The film community doesn’t need this.

[@Overexposed1]

I agree, altogether better company - which means something. Thanks for watching.

[@munkysthrowpoop]

Omg the fly flying around was driving me nuts but great information! Seems crazy to think that they feel the need to do something like this.

[@Overexposed1]

Negatives to recording in the garage. Winter is coming and we won’t have them to worry about!

[@heresmyurl]

As i said on reddit: They are allowed to protect their copyrights. With that said, they should have never applied for and absolutely never been given such a broad trademark. They complained that they have associated themselves and marketed themselves so much with 800t, blah. Just because they, stupidly, decided to market 800t so hard does not mean they should be allowed exclusive use of this. After all this, they seem to wake up, load their gun, and shoot themselves in the foot more and more. I'm amazed at how their PR team is approaching this; just stupid.

[@ZachACameraGuy]

guys you can buy directly from kodak or other distributors 400ft bulk 50D，250D，500T，and re package the film yourselves... and that will cost you less than $8 per roll.. i've never bought cinestill myself cuz their price tags are, honestly, stupid. also tons of Asian work shops sells repackaged kodak motionpicture film, with remjet removed (compatible with C41 processing machines), fancy packaging and everything with a price tag of around $10, i really dont understand why people are still buying cinestills knowing they are just the same as all these other options i've mentioned above.

[@gewglesux]

"Ansel Adams and Colonel Sanders" ~Priceless.... I found a new channel to love.

[@spawnv2]

I'm starting to shoot film now, did it like 15 years ago in University. Kinda wanted to try cinestill but searching for options I saw others that are the same. Prices here in Chile are really expensive so this makes another point for me to not buy from them. I wonder how they manage to register such a general denomination and they ask not to use variants. That's really odd but I don't know US requirements for that. If they still want to go ahead with the lawsuits maybe the other making it could use "400+400 Tee" it could work xd

[@TheFilmFellow]

Always preferred to shoot the actual Vision3 film anyway. Great video man! Couldn’t agree more.

[@michaelmazzen]

Cinestill just made enemies of their entire and rather small niche customer base. Im a pro photographer shooting film for decades. The 800T thing is absolutely frivolous and totally insane, Not buying anything from them and blasting it from the roof tops. The fucked up big time and overstepped the line. Nobody needs them - too many alternatives. so lets make sure they go belly up. This kind of greed needs to be punished harshly.

[@Oldstockz]

Greed is camera biz now. I'm surprised anyone has been surprised that there's more blatant toxicity in the scene. Cinestill is sorta shitty for this, but sorta hilarious that they have the audacity to go after small businesses.

[@EliHackett-fm4of]

It's wild seeing people on the internet acting like Cinestill is some big company bullying people around. It's fewer than 15 people. It's so easy to buy into the internet outrage machine and think you're supporting small business by bringing pitchforks against... a small business but you'd probably change your tune if you actually met any of the people who work there and got their side of the story.

[@Oldstockz]

@@EliHackett-fm4of that doesn't really make it better, man. They don't even make the film. I won't argue that the people may be awesome, but shit man, crying over a film designation over money doesn't really make it okay yanno. Just sayin' They don't make it, they don't own it, and a designation isn't something to trademark. Cinestill makes plenty of money elsewhere. This whole situation, and any drama in the scene is pretty disgusting.

[@EliHackett-fm4of]

.@foodgaze2644 But they do make it. They worked with Kodak to manufacture this film. It's not just vision 500 cinema film that they took the remjet off of. They go on site at Kodak and I believe they divert some of the film stock from ever getting the remjet coating. And if you look at the film stock it doesn't say Kodak it says Cinestill on it so it's not like they're just respooling film. They're not crying over a film designation over money... other people are. They don't care about small respoolers they care about Chinese companies looking to ride their coat tails and dilute their brand with inferior product. Unfortunately in the US if you'd like to protect your branding from one party you need to show precedence of protecting it consistently from everyone. The reason other companies are selling similar products and labelling them 800T isn't because it's the proper designation, (it's vision 500 film, not 800 after all) They're selling 800T film and marketing it as such because Cinestill did the work of making it popular. Sure 800T has existed in the past but companies selling respooled de-remjet Kodak vision 500T aren't selling it as 500T are they and they're also not selling it as 800T because people remember Kodak's vision 800T that was discontinued 20 years ago, they're doing it because Cinestill did. Granted I think it would have been in Cinestill's best interest to name is something specific to avoid this situation entirely but I just don't think they could have predicted this backlash when at the time no one was selling 800T film.

[@j.zuberi]

Good to know! Done with Cinestill then! Standing in solidarity with the smaller stocks.

[@emilioferral8606]

Theyve already lost in the court of public opinion.

[@emilioferral8606]

Now i just hope someone else makes XX in 120

[@MrAndrewClaycomb]

Midwestfilmco sells a film labeled “Double X”

[@ralphstark9961]

I am already phasing out Cinestill chemicals, film, and retail products. They offer nothing new and alternates can sourced elsewhere with minimal effort . The part baffles me is that KODAK used "800T" FOR VISION FILM in the 90s and Kodak couldn't tm it. I would love to know the back story on how the "800T" tm was issued. My though is Cinestill will loose the tm pretty quickly if it goes to a judge. Alternatively maybe the community can crowd source a tm challenge to the "800T" tm. Kind of like a the whole Game Stock FU to greedy corporations. In the mean let the market forces take effect and if CInestill can't adapt they can go out of business they have upset a lot of people in the film community. I feel this community is accustom its tenuous existence and to have a company that pledged to support the community attack it is an unforgivable betrayal.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

Kodak never marketed any motion picture stock.... ever.... nor would they market 800T when it's Kodak Vision 3 500T.... the Remjet layer eats up about 2/3rd of a stop of light.... that's why 800T is the box speed for Kodak Vision 500T without the Remjet layer.... it's cool to be angry at the invisibile villain.... it's stupid to spew uneducated nonsense....

[@yoepvh9250]

A short question concerning chemicals: the only c-41 alternative I can find is the one by tetenal. Is it any different from the cinestill kit?

[@cheng2006]

@@LoFiAxolotl uh if you're not 100% sure about what you're talking about it's best to not get on a high horse. He is not talking about Vision3 500T, he's talking about this one: Kodak Vision 800T Color Negative Film 5289 Year 1998 - 2005 Principle Subtractive 3 color: Chromogenic monopack, Tungsten, 800 ASA Invented by Eastman Kodak Company

[@Shmooexe3440]

There are few sellers in the UK doing the exact same thing and selling it for far cheeper. To the point where they will do a bundle of 800t 500t and 250t for the same price as one roll of cinestill 800T. So I agree they are doing it out of fear. And it’s so greedy. Loved the video as always

[@gamorodesign]

which sellers? i want to bring my business to them instead of the greedy bastards

[@Holvanabud]

@@gamorodesign hes full of it @shmooexe3440

[@NathanStarrVideo]

​@@gamorodesignHighly recommend Analogue Revival. Based in Manchester. Can't go wrong

[@golddragon51296]

I dragged them in their most recent post, citing how they lied saying they weren't threatening to sue and that was defamation, then quoted their response to the lawsuit, and then they liked my comment of their reply, and then I dragged them for claiming to trademark 800T which is a technical naming, one used STILL by kodak and others. They're disgusting and philosophically opposed to what the film community is based upon: preservation and community.

[@mellifont96]

never stop dragging. drag them down into the abyss and drag the, farther than you've ever dragged anyone before, just when they think they've been dragged enough, keep dragging them. Hell yeah drag them draggggggg bruh.

[@RafalWepa]

I agree, these are just numbers. Imagine if the first Nikon lenses were reserved for 1.4 etc., no one would be able to use these numbers to identify the lens brightness and its characteristics.

[@Ivandotjpeg]

I have about 10 rolls in my freezer. That really sucks.

[@c.augustin]

The only trademark CineStill could have is "CineStill 800T". If they have a patent on their remjet removal process - this one they could bring to court (if somebody uses the exact same process). But simple trademark infringement of a trademark they can't enforce? Smells fishy (they go against the small fish, as they can't attack the producer itself). Very bad behavior. I might buy their C-41 chemicals because those are cheaper and have better availability than my preferred ones (from Tetenal), but that's it (until they change their behavior).

[@LoFiAxolotl]

They were granted the trademark.... the trademark is very much enforceable until a judge decides that they shouldn't have the trademark.... and "warm water" isn't something you can patent

[@c.augustin]

@@LoFiAxolotl If there's more involved than just "warm water" (not that simple if you want to re-spool the film and do it in a way that's efficient), it might be patentable. That they would lose the trademarks if challenged (and know it) is evitable, as they only go against small entities that can't defend themselves in court. It's time that some bigger fish does challenge them in court (costs depend on where they have those trademarks).

[@xiaodu87]

I was recently at the Photopia photography fair at Hamburg. Stood in front of the cinestill booth. Happy not to have bought a roll of film there. Opted for the new Ilford color film, might try out Orwo films as well. But not Cinestill after this.

[@AmorsAverageAdventures]

Ilford’s making color film now??

[@Minolta_Gal]

Wait Ilford makes color film? Honestly I’m not a fan of the Orwo film. Maybe you’ll have better luck with it.

[@xiaodu87]

@@Minolta_Gal I was told in the comment section of another video, that the film is by another company (not Ilford Harman). But yes, I got one such film at the Photopia fair here in Hamburg.

[@Minolta_Gal]

@@xiaodu87 sweet.

[@ghosttownsentinel5288]

@@xiaodu87 so how does it look, since you bought a roll?

[@jonatascd_]

dang! well done. please share whenever (if ever) you get some communication from them regarding this video

[@gewglesux]

Love shooting Cinestill!! great stuff!! I all this controversy does not start a another film shortage

[@Devdev009]

I am not too familiar will all of Cinestill’s Kickstarted promises. But from what I’ve read, they have failed to deliver on a few. Meanwhile, Reflx Labs released Aerocolor IV (aka Santacolor/Flic Film Elektra) in 120 and 220 rolls, and are the first I think to do this.

[@dan.allen.digital]

Love that fly buzzing around your video.

[@JawnNawva]

Btw I like that you keep those takes where you stumble over your words. It feels like I'm talking to a friend in good lighting and colors lol

[@Overexposed1]

I try to cut them out when they are really bad, but I don’t get them all!

[@theloverboydiaries]

Thank you for sharing this. Had no idea.

[@tomscameras]

Thanks for the video and clarification about what Cinestill is doing currently!

[@spieler440]

Never understood why anyone buys cinestill anyway.

[@AnalogueDiaries]

Wow! This is so messed up. I didn't know about this, such a bad move from Cinestill. It's sad. Thanks for sharing!

[@RudolfWolph]

OOF Guess the 800T that I've had in my freezer since 2018 is the last film I'll ever buy from them. (I've found a couple labs that'll develop 500T with the remjet anyway, and it's easy enough to remove it with a baking soda prebath in home development.) I feel like they were trying to gaslight people by pretending Cinestill doesn't have a color cast when developed in C-41 anyway.

[@Overexposed1]

Correct. Regular vision 3 developed in ECN2 looks significantly better.

[@alexinnewwest1860]

Thanks for this. They always seemed a bit shady. Buying random stuff. Slapping their sticker on it and charging 4x the price! 🤦‍♂️

[@nlonguk]

8:14 this! I agree with you. Thanks for your video.

[@TheDigileet]

Ever notice how store brand Frosted Flakes have the same name as the name brand? It’s because Kellogg’s couldn’t trademark a name that generic. Kenworth has been making a heavy duty truck called the T800 since the 1980s. Maybe they should weigh in on another company pretending they own that name.

[@mgpyy]

I love cinestill and now I'm trying Reflx lab cuz cinestill are more expensive. But there are so many version of remjet removed Kodak vision 3 500T film that similar to cinestill.

[@TheLefse]

Ridiculous. Cinestill should be boycotted.

[@TheOstorlab]

I would reissue with the name 799T and advise users to set their cameras as close as possible to ISO 799.

[@Overexposed1]

I love the pettiness

[@TheOstorlab]

​@@Overexposed1 I would even launch a series of "mea culpa" social media posts and videos "apologizing" to CineStill for their "transgression," thereby further exposing CineStill's actions.

[@jsshayes1]

I agree with you and sounds like a bummer what Cinestill is doing. But, I will also say the witch hunts that happen on Reddit and rage bait youtube videos really rub me the wrong way.

[@Overexposed1]

It’s not rage bait. It’s news.

[@GavinSeim]

Just started using CineStill. And I just stopped also 😂 I won't tolerate this kind of behavior from cooperate scumbags that don't even produce a product.

[@theeggplantking]

I'm glad I never supported their efforts to up-charge cinema film. What a gross company, and I'm sure many of us will tell all our friends about the less scummy alternatives going forward.

[@baiyunpeng2121]

Jesus, can’t believe they are still trying to hurt the community for profit when the community is already that small. I am not a fan of repackaged motion picture film in the first place when still film is available. But cinestill will definitely be black listed for me for now on. Their actions are so shameful.

[@MrJakrab]

Overexposed exposing cinestill, perfection👌🖤

[@alexcarrillo5510]

BRAVO OVEREXPOSED BRAVO, I TOO AGREE, EVEN THOUGH THAT i MISSED KODAK EKTAPRESS, SUPRA AND ULTRACOLOR FILM FROM KODAK that even Lomography makes or sells a Color Negative that I can use similar to what I mentioned Please Lomo do not end your Color Negative Films Please!!!!!!.

[@jessyparr]

A real shame because I enjoy 800T, but they won’t get my money anymore. I’ll add halation in post lol. ETA: knew they went after the small businesses, didn’t know they ONLY went after small businesses. Really gross they’ll go after a guy in his apartment selling 800T film but they won’t go after B&H for doing the exact same thing.

[@lookboom3913]

There was a Kodak motion picture film Vison 2 or vision 1, that was marked as 800t.

[@HennessyPatrick]

There is one thing missing from this video and it is the fact that Cinestill's respooled Kodak 500T is infact respooled, however sans the film's proprietary remjet layer, givng Cinestill's film that recognizable look in light sources and highlights. Bulk loading Kodak's 5219 (500T) as is will not achieve the same effect as Cinestill., without removing the remjet. That being said, as a small camera shop owner, I do not like them attacking similar stores to that of my own over petty things such as alphanumerical combos. Their products have since been removed from my store.

[@catoi6324]

Ah fuck, 400D was my bread and butter

[@gamorodesign]

they should just call it 800Ts or 800TS

[@elmoonfire]

It would be like Ford trade marking V8

[@Nacnud92]

Man, I *just* fell in love with Cinestill 400 and 800… now I have to find something else.

[@kuroexmachina]

never understood why cinestill price skyrocketed. it's low tier at best

[@padronopusx6460]

I’m still gonna buy canes till 800t because I know they’re reliable. And they DO “make” something. They remove the remjet layer so I don’t need to pay for special processing.

[@aravindvinayakan]

Would love to see Cinestill go out of business :)

[@Uwe_Ludolf]

I don't have the law knowledge like you, but I agree. They are a company pretending they invented the wheel, but just doing a slight modification to an existing product. Nowadays they are so big they do custom coatings and Kodak just makes the film without the remjet layer. What they did is really silly, like a car maker that claims "5.7 V8™" If you make a "Myfilmbrand 30T" and describe it as "this is a DIN30° / iso 800 tungsten based film", would it still be breaking the law, or is it just not allowed in the name? 30T or 640T are the best way to work around it I think. It's funny that the registered T800, once such a film was made by Foma. I wonder if they ever registered that trademark. I don't expect a 200T, Cinestill add 2/3 stop so they will maybe come out with a 320T. I never bought Cinestill and most likely never will. If I will shoot Vision3, I'll buy the Silbersalz35 stuff and get it ECN2 developed by them as it was supposed to. Lomography film is partially coated by Kodak, their normal stuff like CN100, 400 and 800. The b/w and "weird" stuff is coated by Innoviscoat. I think all this weird stuff are actually attempts to make a proper colour film. Someday they will reach that goal. Innoviscoat is basically what is left of Agfa Leverkusen, but then much smaller. On the same machines, also the film is coated for Polaroid film, they are further finished in the Netherlands. But yeah, if we are on a rant to Cinestill, if you are in some Facebook group about analogue photography and someone rather new will ask about problems with developing, they either use Df96 monobath or the Cs41 kit. B/w aren't new either, there is a reason Ilford stopped making them.

[@LaskyLabs]

The only advantage of cinestill is that the films are cut in 120 without sproclet holes. Here's hoping somebody else can get the stocks cut that way (maybe even with remjet so we don't have halations), so we can have a better medium format alternative. I want 200t in medium format, it's the sleeper hit from the lineup.

[@LaskyLabs]

Also, if we get competition, I want them to roll it in 220 just to show cinestill that it's not so hard.

[@doozledumbler5393]

The only reason I bought Cinestill was the DX coding and less hassle. Anyways, not going to buy from them again, cine stocks are a dime a dozen and there's nothing special about what Cinestill sells.

[@OJCLDJ]

Shenanigans!! We declare shenanigans!! Everyone get a broom.. Cinestill, this is bullshit!

[@trels203]

No respect for cinestill at this point. Ill be choosing the alternative 800t options now

[@swagwizard4376]

i wish i knew about this before buying my first ever roll of cinestill last week. im too poor to not shoot it, but i dont think ill ever buy another roll from them. low key might just buy some cinema film and repackage it myself in my closet. dont need a massive company to do it for me.

[@areallyrealisticguyd4333]

Cinestill has to do ONE thing and I emphasize ONE thing!! drop the trademark and apologize to the community. Is that gonna win people back? Absolutely not!! but they're in for a world of a hell if their company gets reported for anti-competitive/business practices. if there's anything this country is good at its lawsuits and I don't think Daddy Kodak is gonna protect them 😂 also might I add that I know so many people who have canceled their 400D 4x5 pre orders and spent all that money on buying Reflx Labs products

[@pradheep88]

I won't be purchasing any products manufactured by Cinestill from now on.

[@sendark001]

that's a nice colour hoodie mate.

[@Overexposed1]

You won’t miss me, that’s for sure.

[@vha42]

The new rebraning could be perhaps “800 iso non daylight film”?, and if they claim to have copyright on iso use Asa or din, 27 din should be 800 iso. Hope still there is some common sense to be fond

[@leedanbi]

These alternative film brands are less expensive and are a much better product. Why on earth would anyone shoot Cinestill- especially after all of this? 🤢

[@chronicfish]

This reminds me of the time when Woody Harrelson, decided to rebrand and repackage ... oxygen ....

[@Raf_9000]

Thanks for explaining the drama! Anyone know any 50D alternatives ?

[@jakeaaron]

Reflx Labs sells it with and without remjet. quite few companies sell it with remjet. I'm pretty sure FFP sells all the kodak motion stocks with remjet.

[@Raf_9000]

Thanks! @@jakeaaron

[@londonskaterboi]

bought cinestill in the past, now they are dead to me

[@laugary8186]

For me cinestill 800T is suck,Kodak 5219 is the best!

[@WittyDroog]

What gets me is the pond is still big enough that they could have existed and thrived off their name alone. It didn't matter if people were doing the same for cheaper, people still would have bought it (it tends to be more easily found in brick and mortar stores), if anything people will pay the premium for consistency if that's all they could offer. Look how many repack films out there thrive and exist purely on the novelty of their *packaging*, yes film is a popular hobby but it's still incredibly niche that we don't need people actively going out and stomping other companies when people are willing to buy any and all film stocks. If Cinestill was truly afraid then maybe they should take notes from Lomography and actually work on some unique chemistries from Kodak or whoever, make a range of films that are designed to recreate specific film era tones (like how Lomo does with their various B&W films) I dunno novelty absolutely works in this hobby!

[@Not-A-Woke-Liberal]

Their film sucks it has a terrible look. I tried it once then threw the few rolls I had in the trash.

[@Tauredian]

Such a shame, I wanted to try Cinestill stuff. Not anymore.

[@jameslenney]

I kinda understand what Cinestill is doing. Their own statement made it clear that “800T” has become associated with their product over time due to their work on an extremely high-quality and stable product, within an industry that is awash with unstable poor quality film that produces weird results or expires too soon.

[@slothsarecool]

disappointing to hear, brand was the one thing they had going for themselves really

[@lukehenderson5097]

Brb, going to copyright 52mm. For a dropshipping company I also need to go and create... Nobody can call their filters 52mm anymore, sorry.

[@Overexposed1]

About the extent of it. Silly

[@MrBarberousse]

You’re the first one I see talking about the trademark itself from a legal point of view. If Intel couldn’t trademark 80486, it seems like 800T probably doesn’t deserve trademark protection either. 80486 wasn’t a technical so it was at least somewhat creative.

[@Overexposed1]

It strikes me as a mistake on the officer who granted this. Lack of familiarity with the industry and naming conventions being the reason. I looked up the trademark, and it was initially denied - then granted finally in 2022.

[@jeffg.8964]

Sayonara, Cinestill.

[@ShotByJaguar]

watch out for that cinestill letter for brand defamation ... :D

[@Overexposed1]

Everyone knows the defense to defamation is… TRUTH.

[@bigmike3189]

Cine still film prices arent worth it anymore 16.45 us for 1 roll is crazy we need some competition

[@paulh6043]

Excellent.

[@jheredi84]

CineStill lost my money. 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@krautnapped]

So I was waiting on you to weigh in because you're got a law background. Now, on it's face, this whole thing was a nice helping on BS on CineStill's part, but it's always good to listen to counsel. My background is in branding and marketing, so I was holding my shot until someone outside of the reddit arm-chair-legal comments came in. Even outside of an argument in court... why would Cinestill do this? You have a small niche of professionals and hobbiests that are on your side from the get-go and you... hit a smaller niche of resellers? Any small niche of people tend to be more informed on things. I just bought my last three rolls of Cinestil 800T... ever. Unless Cinestill decides to drop this weird argument (again, this seems legally dubious at best) I gotta tell my local shops and fellow photogs to avoid all Cinestill products. This is a real feel-bad moment for the film/analog community.

[@Overexposed1]

I’ve been thinking about it all day, the best I can figure is that they feel can increase their sales on the margins by scaring some of the smaller sellers away from the alternatives. My guess is they really have no real interest in this ever seeing a courtroom. My guess Cinestill trying to increase profits through bullying and scare tactics rather than actually coming out with a meaningful, compelling product. Time will tell!

[@krautnapped]

@@Overexposed1 I think your take is pretty much on the money. I'd add to that that Cinestill is betting that the KZbin/Reddit/Intenet community is a small minority of a small minority and won't blow back on them. From a marketing standpoint, this is a risky bet. If more people who influence this enthusiast market start calling out this kind of BS, I can't really see this kind of gamble paying off. Next time I'm at my local shop talking film, I'm 100% going to bring this up so that they can help inform the rest of the people coming down to drop money on film stocks.

[@Xin200O]

Damn. no more cinestill film chems for me then…

[@LoFiAxolotl]

The technical specification would be 800 ISO/ASA Tungsten Balanced not 800T though and i mean it's basic capitalism.... i don't particularly like Cinestill film.... but can't really fault them for doing what any corporation would do.... also they do 120 Film aswell... which is a little more involved than repackaging stuff.... still not gonna shoot Cinestill because i don't like their stock.... but if anythings the problem it's capitalism

[@kurwaskadmamwiedziec]

Fun fact: I have lately bought kodaks repackaged 250D film for something like 5 bucks. Who needs cinestill anyways? It’s like when specialized bullied a coffeehouse over the use of „roubaix”, that they didn’t own themselves.

[@CryWolfFilms]

so whats the story of cinestill? what does kodak allow them to repackage their film? why doesnt kodak sell the film stock? i'm genuinely confused.

[@Overexposed1]

Cinestill buys Kodak film, strips away the remjet and sells it. Other, smaller company’s have started doing the same thing. Cinestill applied for the trademark for 800T and got it. I think that’s absurd because 800T is a technical spec, not a name. Cinestill yelling at people to stop selling 800 speed tungsten balanced films and calling them 800T.

[@bestmoviesever1]

​@@Overexposed1 I heard a rumor that CineStill actually now a days commissions Kodak to make the vision 3 film for them without the remjet applied in the first place. I have no idea if that is at all true but I thought I heard that somewhere on another KZbin video or something.

[@carlkligerman1981]

How the hell do you trademark 800 ISO tungsten film or the letters with which people designate it? This is straight up bullshit. And what really sucks is that this company projects itself like they ‘care’ about the film community, but any of its members with the wherewithal to get some old Kodak film stock and make it suitable for still photography to make a few bucks get stomped with this nonsense. This is as bad as Apple pretending to care about the environment while making the repair and replacement of parts so difficult and expensive everybody just buys another product! Anyway, good to know, will be seeking out smaller sellers to source this type of film stock in future. SMH