I heard you guys were taking all our money and buying bitcoin and counterfeit purses with it.
Kidding. I can't wait until you get some film going. Speaking of, I would love a replacement for my provia 400....
Oh geez folks...
I've just caught up on the last couple of pages of arguments and all I can say is this:
The world is not static.
At every step, we have stated the truth of our situation based on all available knowledge.
It's bizarre to me that some of our detractors choose to ignore everything we have published between Nov 2014 and today - and instead hold up the text that was written nearly 5 years ago as some sort of "evidence" that we are the bad guys.
Status update on 126 and 127 formats:
Our 127 machine has been moved into the room with our 120 finishing machines.
And there it will sit until we have the luxury of investing the time and money necessary to attach the machine to the building services, source (or probably, make) new spools and backing paper of the correct thickness, and (as PE points out) make our own base material specifically for that format.
That said, we do fully intend to make 127 film eventually.
126 is another story as the machines need a lot of work. I believe I have a sales plan to make 126 work - but with a cost easily double that of 127, it's completely back-burnered until such a time as we have nothing else to do.
... I just don’t get the extreme negativity. ...
Can you indicate how much money and timescale involved? It also sounds as if the base material will also have to be made specifically for 127 which presumably is a further complication.
Would I be right in assuming that 127 is much more than a matter of simply connecting up the existing machinery and that fruition is as yet many years away
You are all forgetting one very important fact.
35mm uses a different support than 120, both of which are different from any sheet film support.
They use (approximately) 5 mil, 4 mil and 7 mil respectively. The coating machine tensioning must be perfect for each of them.
PE
I don't have any unimportant projects. My time and effort are the most valuable things I have. Why waste them using defective materials.
I think a reasonable conclusion from what you have said is that in terms of 127 film, the machinery is already there but it will take money and time to attach it and it looks as if you will need to make your own spools and backing paper. Can you indicate how much money and timescale involved?
It also sounds as if the base material will also have to be made specifically for 127 which presumably is a further complication.
Can you say exactly what you mean by base material and what might be required and again the timescale involved.
Would I be right in assuming that 127 is much more than a matter of simply connecting up the existing machinery and that fruition is as yet many years away based on the need to get P30 in 35mm up and running as a first priority?
Is there a reason to believe that Ferrania can deliver all of the above in addition to slide film? Given that Kodak took a long time to resurrect slide film even with Kodak's resources I wonder how Ferrania if and once it has successfully produce its slide film believes it will be able to compete? Has Ferrania in its status reports made any mention of this "Kodak new boy on the block" and what effect this might have on itself?
I ask this as a genuine question and not as the prosecuting counsel who never asks a question except those to which he already knows the answer I was not a backer and have no axe to grind here.
On the separate issue of other possible benefits you mention, how many users are there for 126,110 127 film to justify such production given the cost v the profit? These other benefits seem somewhat unlikely to me but there may be evidence that there is a large enough market to justify the investment. If there is what is that evidence?
Thanks
pentaxuser
since this came up in another post... do 127 and 620 and 126 and 110 all use the same 4 mil "roll film" base as 120?
and I an given to understand that 16mm and regualr 8 as well as Super 8 movie film are all on the same 5 Mil base as 35mm Still film? (although the movie stuff may have a extra layer or two to act as a lubricant when the film is being accelerated to 200 MPH and back to stop every 1/24th of a second.
since this came up in another post... do 127 and 620 and 126 and 110 all use the same 4 mil "roll film" base as 120?
and I an given to understand that 16mm and regualr 8 as well as Super 8 movie film are all on the same 5 Mil base as 35mm Still film? (although the movie stuff may have a extra layer or two to act as a lubricant when the film is being accelerated to 200 MPH and back to stop every 1/24th of a second.
As a preface, ultimately I am optimistic that Ferrania will become a reliable producer of film. The size of production or how long it takes to get it going or even how I end up feeling about their emulsions doesn't change that.
Like many others who were original kickstarter backers I am a bit frustrated with the pace and the delays. I do wonder, looking back, if they should have known a bit better what was required to get production going, or how long it would take the Italian government to get the necessary infrastructure connections built. Negligence is too strong a charge, I think, but one certainly wonders if Ferrania did their due diligence before making their timeline estimates. One would imagine that certain delays should have been foreseeable. Any of us who have ever done a big home improvement project, worked in project management or anything related to construction, dealt with the Italian government (most governments, really, are ponderous in their actions), or had to source parts for a rare or old machine could have likely guessed there would be delays.
Even going in knowing that, one is still justified in being a bit disappointed with the length of the delay and a bit concerned that the original slide film, which we were promised in exchange for backing the larger project (and this is an important distinction to saying we /bought/ rolls of film) is slowly slipping further and further into the ether.
I was very excited to try P80. The results from my first few rolls didn't impress me, I think my shooting and developing of this film needs to be adjusted a bit. Note that I didn't do anything weird, I fed it through an F3 with a good meter, two rolls in good light, one in worse conditions, and developed in D76 according to the datasheet. The negs were thin.
This could be fixed by a bit of trial and error - assuming I could get more of the film. Getting an interesting B&W film as a side effect of restarting production is great, genuinely it made me very happy. It's still not a replacement for the E6 we were all hoping for.
Of course, like many things in Italy, something beautiful may just take time. The P80 was like a nice Vermouth or Grappa - enjoyable, a good aperativo, but hopefully only a byproduct of producing the slides, which we all hope will be properly done in good time, like a nice wine.
Aside from the people flaming for one side or the other, I think this is how a lot of us still feel. A little disappointed, but not terribly angry. A little suspicious of the timeline and anxious to see tangible results, but still supportive.
Here is what I've been told about the changes Eastman Kodak had to bring about in order to satisfy their desire to bring back the Ektachrome motion picture film, and Kodak Alaris' desire to bring back the 35mm still film:Also it is possible that Ektachrome had to be reformulated - if you downsize capacity you have to reformulate anyway, because you have to "match" the film to the machine, Photo Enigneer can explain that way better than me - but it also is possible that some of the raw chemicals needed for Ektachrome no longer are available, respectively are forbidden now due to environment protection. So it is possible that they not only had to match the film to a downsized machine, but that they also had to reformulate heavily, because some of the raw chemicals no longer may be available. And some comparisons of old Ekta vs. new Ekta indicate a reformulation, as colors are a little different etc. .
Is there a reason to believe that Ferrania can deliver all of the above in addition to slide film? Given that Kodak took a long time to resurrect slide film even with Kodak's resources I wonder how Ferrania if and once it has successfully produce its slide film believes it will be able to compete? Has Ferrania in its status reports made any mention of this "Kodak new boy on the block" and what effect this might have on itself?
I ask this as a genuine question and not as the prosecuting counsel who never asks a question except those to which he already knows the answer I was not a backer and have no axe to grind here.
On the separate issue of other possible benefits you mention, how many users are there for 126,110 127 film to justify such production given the cost v the profit? These other benefits seem somewhat unlikely to me but there may be evidence that there is a large enough market to justify the investment. If there is what is that evidence?
Here is what I've been told about the changes Eastman Kodak had to bring about in order to satisfy their desire to bring back the Ektachrome motion picture film, and Kodak Alaris' desire to bring back the 35mm still film:
"With the 135 version, two entire color layer structures (6 emulsion layers) required complete rebuilding because the present chemical companies that could supply Eastman Kodak had differences that were not there in the 1999-2012 version of E100G. Once Eastman Kodak knew a rebuild was necessary, actual improvements were “fit in” to make the film a wee bit sharper, have more stability in keeping, and for both Kodaks, improve cold store keeping of the emulsions. Eastman Kodak also adjusted the film’s sensitometric position so that the whites were whiter, and the colors more accurate."
The market realities changed between 2012 and 2017/8, which motivated the efforts to down size the minimum production quantities. With the possibility of smaller runs being economic, the change in the markets meant that bringing the film back was a viable option.
As I understand it, Eastman Kodak has been so busy meeting the higher than projected demand for the 135 film that they haven't been able to make as quick progress as they had hoped bringing 120 and sheet film on stream as well - their human resources are limited, and everything takes a fair bit of time.
They also aren't in a position to stockpile components - they need to project future needs and order materials carefully. Apparently, some of the chemical components they require take their suppliers as much as 6 months to manufacture.
I can understand the frustration and i´d also like to be able to buy Ferrania products now, but i`m afraid you might be misremembering a point. The Kickstarter-plan was to make a limited batch of Scotchchrome with the existing infrastructure. The power plant, providing electricity and steam, still was present and operating at that time and the LRF building itsself was meant to be updated after the slide film was produced.
So it was not like they had to wait for being connected to electricity supply and had no access to the building due to maintenance works, no, they had access to a fully working mini-factory at the time of the Kickstarter - so i`m not sure if they really were bound to forsee that during tear down of the campus accidentally a water pipeline would be destroyed, keeping them from preparing for slide film. And then asbestos to be found inside the LRF. But frustrating it surely was/is for everyone.
Maybe the thin results you got with your P30 might have had to do with quality control. I mean they were not able to convert the film theirselfes, but had to sent to a third party doing the finishing and maybe a problem occured during packing or shipment, so the film maybe was exposed to fumes which produced the thin results of yours. At least not everbody did have this problem of thin negatives and i think once Ferrania has the production in-house, such a problem is less likely to occur, respectively will be easier to trace down - and i´m sure they want to rule out such things.
...
In fact there were far fewer problems than we had expected.
This is because the vast majority of the film we coated in 2017 never left the building.
And our finishing partner actually helped reduce defective rolls even further.
P30 Alpha was tricky to use, plain and simple, and it will remain so even as the overall quality of our production improves.
The real problem in 2012 was that while there was demand, it didn't come close to what constituted economic supply.Thank you very much for the information.
I have not informed myself a lot why Ektachrome was discontinued, but i recall an outcry everywhere i looked when Ektachrome was discontinued, leaving the impression to me that there still was an acceptable demand of Ektachrome. And a few years later they brought it back, so discontinuation seemed a little odd to me.
It is refreshing to know, since I have extremely different results with this film, but when I asked here on the forum people jumped at my throat saying that this is what I should expect when I disregard the best practices and use beer to develop the film (spoiler: I did not).P30 Alpha was tricky to use, plain and simple, and it will remain so even as the overall quality of our production improves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?