It's interesting how the differences between the images kind of melt away when you zoom in like that! I hope the KZfaq compression doesn't ruin the fine details too much!

Thanks, Dmitri!! That film curl of Lomo 800 is just something else! Hopefully the Portra stocks come down in price to match the Lomo ones soon so we can start using that more often.

Dmitri has some comparisons with Aurora 800 on his blog post that was part of this experiment - I didn't have access to the negatives, so I wasn't able to compare them for this process. But it seems to be VERY similar to the Portra 800. Definitely it isn't a remjet-removed cinema film.

Thank you so much!!

Awesome! That's better than I did!

That's why I reached out to the founder of negative lab pro. He was able to guide me on a process that ensured the conversion curves were inverted exactly the same across the different images. Dmitri at Analog Cafe also did a test using his own inversion program that he custom coded. You should check out his analysis as well!

@@LearnFilmPhotography Yeah I did notice you pointed that out. But that is the only variable left, right? Same camera body, same lens, same exposure settings during shooting and scanning. If the post processing is also identical, why do the stocks look so different if, like you say, they are the same film stocks? Surely if this is the case and there are no variables they should look identical. If Negative Lab Pro is indeed making the exact same adjustments, AND the film stocks are actually the same, they should come out the same. This obviously isn't the case so the only explination remaining is that they are indeed different film stocks. Which I also find hard to believe, but surely the evidence presented proves they're different. What other possible answer is there to why they all look so different?

@RoryChapman my understanding is that a different film will have different sensitivity to different parts on the spectrum. Meaning if they're truly different films, one color, like the reds, will be darker on one film stock than they would on another. What I noticed in the films is that the spectral sensitivity was the same between images (except the Fuji 400) - shadows were just as bright, the grains looked nearly identical. The only difference was a little bit of white balancing, which likely has to do more with the thickness of the film base rather than a difference in the emulsion. That's just my view though. Dmitri and Yvonne and others come to different conclusions when looking at these images, which I'm actually quite happy to see!

@@LearnFilmPhotography I've watched Yvonne's video, which brought me to yours and I've read what's freely available on Dimitri's website. I'm really fascinated by this whole thing, and actually interested in all the investigations into what films are what when they're repackaged. Partly because I just want to know and partly because i'm always trying to get the cost down. This one is particularly grabbing my attention though. i absolutely agree that sensitivity to light is one difference, but colour rendition, at least from my experience, also plays a big part. Original Fuji C200 was different in colour rendition than other films from that time. Fuji in general is famous for its green tones being different from other stocks. Agfa Vista 200 produces very different reds than other stocks, like Kodak for instance. and it goes on. Dimitri's article seems to suggest that NLP settings were as controlled as possible, but there was still some automatic changes going on that couldn't be changed. This could account for colour changes, but without seeing a fully manual conversion, it's impossible to know. If NLP is the only variable here, I would want to see a conversion without it. Manual conversion in Darktable maybe where you can input the numbers yourself. Or some form of manual photoshop conversion. Really it's the only way to know becasue they look different to my eyes, even with the adjustments you made, they look like different stocks. But like you, i find that hard to believe.

Does it cost more there than Kodak Portra 800?

@@LearnFilmPhotography here in the US Lomo 800 for me is more expensive than portra 800 in 35. Portra runs me $17.75 and Lomo is $19.30.

@eguanzon17 that's really strange! Is that from a site like B&H? Or a local store?

@@LearnFilmPhotography i was using a local store for reference but B&H has the same price

Aurora 800 is the cheapest of the bunch

That is very expensive! It's similar in Canada for the 35mn film - the 120 is getting very cheap, though.