Another new film from Lomo - Babylon 13

[AgX]

You are very optimistic on minimum toll-coating orders.

 

[Donald Qualls]

it would be of no interest to those who don't want to deal with 100+ft of the stuff at a time.
I don't. I only want to buy a few rolls at a time and am happy to pay for the convenience. There are lots of other films I want to use too!

Yes orwona.com carries it, but only in 100ft reels. $67.
This is great if you want 100ft of it, but not if you like to just buy a few rolls.

For that price, I'm tempted to order a 100 foot roll of that stuff. Let me see what's left after I pay the bills from my July doctor visits. I'll bookmark the web site, at the very least.

Edit: I just remembered I had a PayPal balance, and it appears they use PayPal as their default payment method. Ordered a hundred feet, that'll fill my empty bulk loader. Never been a big slow film guy, but I've got some fast lenses and we have sunshine sometimes in North Carolina (when it's not fixing to thunderstorm, anyway).

 

[Henning Serger]

In the interest of Sunday morning fantasies, just what would it take for Huss to get his 'Huss Hardan Special' and how many rolls of 120, for example, would he get it out of it? (Huss, you don't mind me spending your money do you?) $50,000, $250,000, $1,000,000? I really have NO idea.

Thanks.

I've visited the factory last year. I have the needed numbers in detail. But please understand that because of an NDA I have certain restrictions, and cannot go too much into details.
But it is possible to give you a broader picture so that you get a good impression on the general volume:
If we put all costs together, as there are
- R&D (total costs depend on both the film type and the wanted quality; reversal film is in general more difficult to make and more expensive than CN film)
- costs of emulsion making and a coating run of a volume which is high enough to achieve reasonable costs per unit / film
- film converting and packaging (which have to be done by a separated company like Harman or Foma, as InovisCoat doesn't have that capability)
- marketing and distribution costs.
Then your 1,000,000 $ number is quite close to reality (for CN film).

And you always have to calculate the risk that a complete coating run goes (partly) wrong. That happens. We have had several "strange" or as "creative" marketed products in the past which were simply the unintended results of coating runs which went wrong. With characteristics far away from the wanted / planned product. And where the marketing guys needed all their skills and phantasy to describe the product as wanted this way and being "the hottest shit since sliced bread"...... And sometimes the production goes completely wrong and the material can only go for silver recovery. The worst case, as that of course produces enormous costs when a whole production cannot be sold, and it can kill a smaller manufacturer (that was one major reason of Kentmere's market exit, by the way).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

And sometimes the production goes completely wrong and the material can only go for silver recovery. The worst case, as that of course produces enormous costs when a whole production cannot be sold, and it can kill a smaller manufacturer (that was one major reason of Kentmere's market exit, by the way).

Best regards,
Henning

I'd not heard this before about Kentmere, it was unusual how quickly their product line "disintegrated" and was taken over by Harman.

 

[Henning Serger]

A minimum coating batch usually works out in the order of about 40,000 rolls of 135/36 or 120 if coated at the normal width of Ilford/ Kodak/ Inoviscoat.....

Lachlan, that is not correct in this general way. These three companies have very different minimum production quantities.
For example Harman technology can meanwhile make significant lower volumes than your given number. They have invested in that special capability over the years. And InovisCoat need a significantly higher number. They could make it from a technological point of view, but for reasonable unit costs (for color film) the needed min. volume is higher.
The coating machine there in the factory in Monheim is huge. It is the former Agfa K14 machine of the Agfa Leverkusen plant. The coating width is a bit reduced, and some modernisations have been made. But it remains a machinery working best for higher volumes.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, that is not correct in this general way. These three companies have very different minimum production quantities.
For example Harman technology can meanwhile make significant lower volumes than your given number. They have invested in that special capability over the years. And InovisCoat need a significantly higher number. They could make it from a technological point of view, but for reasonable unit costs (for color film) the needed min. volume is higher.
The coating machine there in the factory in Monheim is huge. It is the former Agfa K14 machine of the Agfa Leverkusen plant. The coating width is a bit reduced, and some modernisations have been made. But it remains a machinery working best for higher volumes.

Best regards,
Henning

The numbers I was going on were based on what I recollect various Kodak people stating the minimum coating length (about 1600m or yards I recall) x machine width of B-38 were - and I recall neither Simon Galley nor Mirko significantly disagreeing with the minimum coating length - I presume Ilford are using shims on M14 to reduce coating width (and upgraded drive systems to bring M14 closer to the extreme start/ stop characteristics that B-38 has?)? I recall that it was one of their big plans to reduce minimum coating quantities - ie coat less at a time, but more coating events to even out product freshness across the range. Is Inoviscoat still scaling for bigger 5,000m+ coating events?

 

[Bormental]

Our application is film to film preservation; traditional photo chemical work.

Kino, I read somewhere that all films (even digitally-filmed) are archived by storing R-G-B channels onto three B&W films. First of all, is this true? And is this what you're referring to here? Thanks.

 

[Kino]

Kino, I read somewhere that all films (even digitally-filmed) are archived by storing R-G-B channels onto three B&W films. First of all, is this true? And is this what you're referring to here? Thanks.

You are speaking of Color Separations on B&W film. It is still practiced as an archival standard in Hollywood with even some totally born-digital features being archived by output on a film recorder.

That being said, NO; we mainly work with native B&W, mostly Nitrate era (1895 to 1955) film elements, with a smattering of other B&W films up to the present. We are a strictly mono film lab; all color is done out of house or digitally in-house. We don't do color separations in-house...

 

[Henning Serger]

The numbers I was going on were based on what I recollect various Kodak people stating the minimum coating length (about 1600m or yards I recall) x machine width of B-38 were - ......

Hello Lachlan,
Kodak's coating machine in B28 has a width of 54" and usually coat masterrolls of 35mm still and motion picture film of about 6,000 feet.
Ilford's coating machine has a bit bigger general max. width (for their 142cm paper parent rolls). Max. width is not always fully used. Length can be handled relatively flexible (film vs. paper).
InovisCoat has the shortest width, for max. 1.08 meters jumbo rolls. Length usually about 1.100 to 2.000 meters (there is also a certain flexibility in length, as the thicker paper rolls need to be shorter in total length).

But as all these machines were designed and built at a time when coating runs contained dozens, often hundreds of master / parent / jumbo rolls, all the surrounding machinery including emulsion kettles were all designed and optimised for these much larger scales. So if even making only one master roll maybe technically possible, it is not possible economically for most of the bigger manufacturers. AFAIK Ilford is currently the only one of the bigger manufacturers who is able to make really small volume coating runs, and keeping the costs in a at least justifiable range. As explained above, Ilford has done several investment steps over the last decade to be capable of such downscaling.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[PFGS]

Hello Lachlan,
Kodak's coating machine in B28 has a width of 54" and usually coat masterrolls of 35mm still and motion picture film of about 6,000 feet.
Ilford's coating machine has a bit bigger general max. width (for their 142cm paper parent rolls). Max. width is not always fully used. Length can be handled relatively flexible (film vs. paper).
InovisCoat has the shortest width, for max. 1.08 meters jumbo rolls. Length usually about 1.100 to 2.000 meters (there is also a certain flexibility in length, as the thicker paper rolls need to be shorter in total length).

But as all these machines were designed and built at a time when coating runs contained dozens, often hundreds of master / parent / jumbo rolls, all the surrounding machinery including emulsion kettles were all designed and optimised for these much larger scales. So if even making only one master roll maybe technically possible, it is not possible economically for most of the bigger manufacturers. AFAIK Ilford is currently the only one of the bigger manufacturers who is able to make really small volume coating runs, and keeping the costs in a at least justifiable range. As explained above, Ilford has done several investment steps over the last decade to be capable of such downscaling.

Best regards,
Henning

Is this problem of scale something that the reborn Ferrania has a potential to address?

 

[Henning Serger]

Is this problem of scale something that the reborn Ferrania has a potential to address?

Yes and no. I've been at the LRF of Film Ferrania and have seen the machine. It is a former pilot coating machine originally mainly designed for R&D purposes. But can also be used for small production runs. But it has a very small width of a bit more of only 20 cm. Therefore only usable for film production, but not for photo paper. Max. length has also been limited (at least at the time of my visit). Therefore the coated rolls are very small in terms of m² and in relation to the other manufacturers. So base rolls must be changed quite often, which means interruption of the coating process and generally higher costs. Just look at the price of their P30 film: It is on the expensive side (even more so considering its performance in relation to the competitor products). And much more expensive than most other products from small niche manufacturers.
If the trend of the film revival continues in the coming years, which I am convinced will be the case based on my market analysis (given/hoping that the Corona Crisis is mostly under control in about 1,5 to 2 years), then the established manufacturers will benefit disproportionately high and much more than Film Ferrania. Higher demand and volumes fit their production structures generally better.
Film Ferrania will never be able to make cheap, higher volume films. They cannot compete on costs in the bigger market with BW film from e.g. Ilford, Foma, ADOX, FilmoTec, Agfa (Belgium), InovisCoat, and not on costs with amateur color film from Kodak and Fujifilm.You will never see a Film Ferrania color film being cheaper than C200 or ColorPlus 200.
We have to look at the things how they really are. We need a realistic assessment. I have often read on forums and social media the expectation that Film Ferrania will generally undercut Kodak and Fujifilm with lower prices. But that is unrealistic.

My assessment is that the real chance for Film Ferrania in the market long-term is offering niche products in the color film market. Products for which the global demand is too low for Kodak, Fuji (and InovisCoat), but still high enough for being attractive and profitable for them. With a high, niche-product-typical but still justifiable price level. But it will be a very hard and long way to go for them to establish that niche. Color film is much more difficult to produce than BW film. I wish them good luck and success (all very nice and hard working guys there).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Huss]

In the interest of Sunday morning fantasies, just what would it take for Huss to get his 'Huss Hardan Special' and how many rolls of 120, for example, would he get it out of it? (Huss, you don't mind me spending your money do you?) $50,000, $250,000, $1,000,000? I really have NO idea.

Thanks.

Man if I had the cash....

 

[Huss]

For that price, I'm tempted to order a 100 foot roll of that stuff. Let me see what's left after I pay the bills from my July doctor visits. I'll bookmark the web site, at the very least.

Edit: I just remembered I had a PayPal balance, and it appears they use PayPal as their default payment method. Ordered a hundred feet, that'll fill my empty bulk loader. Never been a big slow film guy, but I've got some fast lenses and we have sunshine sometimes in North Carolina (when it's not fixing to thunderstorm, anyway).

Good for you. I think there is only one 100ft can left, if anyone else wants to get on it before it is gone.

 

[Bormental]

Man if I had the cash....

What would you order? Seriously, other than having your own name on the box, what would be the agenda?

 

[Henning Serger]

Good for you. I think there is only one 100ft can left, if anyone else wants to get on it before it is gone.

Many Germans and Europeans order directly at FilmoTec. Ordering simply by email.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[PFGS]

Yes and no. I've been at the LRF of Film Ferrania and have seen the machine. It is a former pilot coating machine originally mainly designed for R&D purposes. But can also be used for small production runs. But it has a very small width of a bit more of only 20 cm...

Thanks much for all this - I find these industry details fascinating - we are lucky to have you. I thought at one point, Ferrania was looking at reviving some of the full production machines, not just the prototyper, but I've paid less attention as the updates on the project have slowed.

 

[Huss]

Many Germans and Europeans order directly at FilmoTec. Ordering simply by email.

Best regards,
Henning

Yes, but I was talking about the USA source.

 

[Huss]

What would you order? Seriously, other than having your own name on the box, what would be the agenda?

I would love an ISO 200 Ortho film...
I am waiting to hear why this is impossible! All ortho films I have seen have been under ISO 100.

 

[jmoche]

"I'll take marketing whimsy that will sell the product any day if it keeps the film market going."

Agreed!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak's coating machine in B28 has a width of 54" and usually coat masterrolls of 35mm still and motion picture film of about 6,000 feet.

While that is largely the case, at the time that E100 was being re-engineered, a number of podcasts etc that spoke with Kodak folk discussed this issue & the Kodak people were quite careful to explain that the ability to scale to only one master roll per wide coating event was important to being able to bring materials like E100 and T-Max P3200 back into production. There is a specific section of the emulsion plant (The LEMUR machine in Bob Shanebrook's book, pg. 168) geared towards making small quantities of emulsions for production of lower demand materials.

I would love an ISO 200 Ortho film...

Kodak 4163 Tri-X Ortho existed for a long time. May even have been a bit faster than 200 in daylight - if someone has the data sheet...

I am waiting to hear why this is impossible! All ortho films I have seen have been under ISO 100.

Quite simply a question of demand - and a stop or so slower makes ortho film more tractable in the darkroom/ technical environment - which is where most of it was used after the 1950's.

 

[Helen Hill]

Hah, at last found Your post, your thoughts Huss
Yes, Creating atmosphere is always to One’s advantage .,,

 

[wyofilm]

Slow in my response ... but thanks to Lachlan and Henning for answering my Sunday morning film fantasy. I think I'll have to wait until next year before I contract for my special only in Wyoming film!

 

[foc]

I often wonder is it only people like us here on Photrio that are interested in what film is in which cassette, made by whom.

I remember in around the 1990s, probably the heyday of rebadged and private label films (35mm I am talking about). Often it was only the box and cassette that had the private name/label on it, the film inside still had Agfa / Ferrania / Fuji name and markings. I don't think a lot of people passed any heed.

 

[AgX]

I remember in around the 1990s, probably the heyday of rebadged and private label films (35mm I am talking about). Often it was only the box and cassette that had the private name/label on it, the film inside still had Agfa / Ferrania / Fuji name and markings.

First time I hear of such.

 

[Agulliver]

I often wonder is it only people like us here on Photrio that are interested in what film is in which cassette, made by whom.

I remember in around the 1990s, probably the heyday of rebadged and private label films (35mm I am talking about). Often it was only the box and cassette that had the private name/label on it, the film inside still had Agfa / Ferrania / Fuji name and markings. I don't think a lot of people passed any heed.

I think the millions who used the rebranded C41 colour films didn't care for the most part. They got cheap film branded with the name of their chosen lab, or chain store...the film did the job. I wasn't involved in any forums or clubs back then but I imagine the more serious photographers were at least curious as to where the film came from. And if you looked at your negatives, it was often easy to tell who actually manufactured a film.

Even today the "Power Geek" film offered at Poundland has "Fuji C200" on the negatives.