It looks like filmstock that expired decades ago and they found somewhere on a shelf, which has to be pushed a stop or three, and are now trying to sell and make a quick buck with it :D
Thank you for sharing your views on this-really interesting! Some valuable knowledge to keep in mind. As a fellow film shooter, I always appreciate learning from others.
Five Below used to sell “10” exposure black & white that seemed no different from this, perhaps they could be the same film. Since last year they’ve been selling color film (literally just vision3 film with the remjet still intact). It also has “10” exposures.
What did you use to scan this film? Or was it a lab scan? From the zoomed in shots that you showed, looks like the actual silver grain wasn't really resolved in the scan. Seems like digital noise or pixelation. If you look at the cables on the bridge at 4:41, they seem to be pixelated (or "aliased"). I'm not suggesting that this is a good film or that anybody should go and buy it, but I think there is detail left on the table by the scans.
I know the hoodie on the gear shift is a joke, I bought one for my sim racing set up, but actually wound up using it down here in florida where my shifter sits in the sun all day i cant touch it when i get in the car, it actually comes in handy!
I watched the whole video because it was interesting, but I am earnestly and honestly asking - is there a remote chance the green tube light can be ditched or simply be placed vertical or off-screen as much as possible. There's no problem with the color itself, it's just a sliver of intense light that is eye-searing on a full screen display, especially because there are lots of cuts from one piece of footage to another, and that high brightness green beam just sears the eyes ;( and is ultimately a distraction Another thing, the auto-focus needs to be off ;( constant hunting shouldn't be a thing for the talking head footage.
That was my thoughts until I did the actual maths. Whilst film and chemicals are expensive out of context, when you start comparing the price of a decent body and lens with comparable modern digital cameras its actually quite reasonable. For under $500 you can get what used to be professional level camera, some really good glass and still have change to spend on some basic developing kit and enough chemicals to last you a good year or so. If you are lucky, you can pick up an old enlarger as well. That's a fraction of the cost of getting a decent mirrorless camera body paired with a good lens. If you shoot 1 roll a month at $10, your annual costs are going to be about $500. That's not actually bad value compared to shooting with proper mirrorless and DSLR cameras.
![How Does Film ACTUALLY Work? (It's MAGIC) [Photos and Development] - Smarter Every Day 258](/img/1.gif)
It looks like filmstock that expired decades ago and they found somewhere on a shelf, which has to be pushed a stop or three, and are now trying to sell and make a quick buck with it :D
Thank you for sharing your views on this-really interesting! Some valuable knowledge to keep in mind. As a fellow film shooter, I always appreciate learning from others.
Five Below used to sell “10” exposure black & white that seemed no different from this, perhaps they could be the same film. Since last year they’ve been selling color film (literally just vision3 film with the remjet still intact). It also has “10” exposures.
Back in the day, short rolls of 35mm film were used by insurance investigators and law enforcement.
What did you use to scan this film? Or was it a lab scan? From the zoomed in shots that you showed, looks like the actual silver grain wasn't really resolved in the scan. Seems like digital noise or pixelation. If you look at the cables on the bridge at 4:41, they seem to be pixelated (or "aliased"). I'm not suggesting that this is a good film or that anybody should go and buy it, but I think there is detail left on the table by the scans.
Back in the days 12 frames was normal. 135 film was sold in 12-20-36 frames. 24 and 27 came later.
You're better off buying a role of Kentmere for $6, since this junky AliExpress stuff costs around $11 per 36 exposures.
Fomopan 200 would still work better, and cost less
Fomapan is very underappreciated.
Kentucky Gentleman would be a great name for a film stock.
Don’t give me any ideas….
I know the hoodie on the gear shift is a joke, I bought one for my sim racing set up, but actually wound up using it down here in florida where my shifter sits in the sun all day i cant touch it when i get in the car, it actually comes in handy!
That honestly never occurred to me, but yea. That actually makes alot of sense lol.
I watched the whole video because it was interesting, but I am earnestly and honestly asking - is there a remote chance the green tube light can be ditched or simply be placed vertical or off-screen as much as possible. There's no problem with the color itself, it's just a sliver of intense light that is eye-searing on a full screen display, especially because there are lots of cuts from one piece of footage to another, and that high brightness green beam just sears the eyes ;( and is ultimately a distraction
Another thing, the auto-focus needs to be off ;( constant hunting shouldn't be a thing for the talking head footage.
I’ll keep all of that in mind
I think of getting into film photography and then remind myself it's an INVESTMENT
That was my thoughts until I did the actual maths. Whilst film and chemicals are expensive out of context, when you start comparing the price of a decent body and lens with comparable modern digital cameras its actually quite reasonable.
For under $500 you can get what used to be professional level camera, some really good glass and still have change to spend on some basic developing kit and enough chemicals to last you a good year or so. If you are lucky, you can pick up an old enlarger as well. That's a fraction of the cost of getting a decent mirrorless camera body paired with a good lens.
If you shoot 1 roll a month at $10, your annual costs are going to be about $500. That's not actually bad value compared to shooting with proper mirrorless and DSLR cameras.
2$ film is better than no film LOL
4:12 Hahaha love this
Take it from me..these Chinese are pretty good at selling you square balls.!
Beats paying $150 for a pack of portra 400