Back in June 2018, the Ferrania Folks hoped to be in continuous production by Fall

[Disconnekt]

When asked bout P30 in bulk, this is what they said:

 

[Disconnekt]

They were also asked about 126 film, this was their reply:

 

[cmacd123]

Well the latest announcement of their new product was not another format but was simply a version of P30 which may or may not be really much different.

while I would guess that the ORTO is derived from starting with the same basic formula as P30, It does look from the examples testers have posted, that it DOES have a different sensitization. That could be as simple as dropping one of the sensitizing Dyes, or is perhaps much more complex.

unlike many suppliers that just repackage AREO film, at lest the two films from Ferrania are unique.

 

[fs999]

Well the latest announcement of their new product was not another format but was simply a version of P30 which may or may not be really much different

Orthochromatic and panchromatic are two different things. Or has Ilford fooled us with the Ortho Plus ?

 

[Hassasin]

So how does running a new emulsion coating go against, business wise, just increasing production on one emulsion, and making it available in other formats? I don't see Ferrania making major inroads in film brand to start, and how a rather low interest ORTHO film is going to positively affect the bottom line ?

I can see 120 being potentially a challenge due to confectioning complexity, but that is not so with any sheet film. It makes no sense trying to pull in a tiny ORTHO market, instead of building solid following with film already known enough to film shooters and increasing fan base with more formats on the shelves.

 

[twelvetone12]

Doesn't 4x5 and 120 have different film base? That alone could be quite a blocker.

 

[Hassasin]

Doesn't 4x5 and 120 have different film base? That alone could be quite a blocker.

Is coating on different bases a blocker, vs. trying to put out a different film that has low demand as a near certainty, thus hardly a business supportive expected revenues ?

Or is ORTHO more about - we don't just make one film ? Sort of advertising a brand, spending PR money, knowing full well it is mostly a charge against bottom line that, conversely, might somewhat help that bottom line?

 

[twelvetone12]

I can't say on any of the business operations, but what makes you think coating (and sourcing the base itself...) on a different base is trivial? Just look up the threads regarding the backing paper for 120.

 

[Hassasin]

I can't say on any of the business operations, but what makes you think coating (and sourcing the base itself...) on a different base is trivial? Just look up the threads regarding the backing paper for 120.

Never said anything being trivial. All I said hitting market with a low demand product has no clear logic. Also, can't see how getting proper film base is an issue, others have it, certainly not from own basement.

 

[MattKing]

Is coating on different bases a blocker

I've had discussions about how much complexity was involved when Eastman Kodak started coating 120 with the current Ektachrome.
That change in substrate process was really complex and surprisingly difficult - not least because 120 involves backing paper, and 135 does not.
Some seem to think that the film is essentially the emulsion, and the substrate can be changed at will. It is better to think of the emulsion and the substrate together as a package.
Given how difficult it is right now to obtain the acetate base, and given the fact that Kodak manufactures their own PET base, but has to source the acetate version, I expect that if it was easy to switch substrate, you would have seen all Kodak materials on PET - and that certainly hasn't happened.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I've had discussions about how much complexity was involved when Eastman Kodak started coating 120 with the current Ektachrome.
That change in substrate process was really complex and surprisingly difficult - not least because 120 involves backing paper, and 135 does not.
Some seem to think that the film is essentially the emulsion, and the substrate can be changed at will. It is better to think of the emulsion and the substrate together as a package.
Given how difficult it is right now to obtain the acetate base, and given the fact that Kodak manufactures their own PET base, but has to source the acetate version, I expect that if it was easy to switch substrate, you would have seen all Kodak materials on PET - and that certainly hasn't happened.

But what about eg Lomo 800, which is used in Kodak single use cameras. Would they do all the research just for Lomo to be able to offer in in 120?

 

[pbromaghin]

I've had discussions about how much complexity was involved when Eastman Kodak started coating 120 with the current Ektachrome.
That change in substrate process was really complex and surprisingly difficult - not least because 120 involves backing paper, and 135 does not.

Given that there is a difference between 35mm and 120 substrates, I don't remember it ever being clearly explained just WHY the substrates NEED to be different. Not even by PE. Unless it just went over my head.

 

[MattKing]

Given that there is a difference between 35mm and 120 substrates, I don't remember it ever being clearly explained just WHY the substrates NEED to be different. Not even by PE. Unless it just went over my head.

35mm substrate is thicker, because it needs to be stronger, even with holes punched in it.
120 substrate is thinner, because it needs to fit with the backing paper on the spool.
Plus there are all sorts of differing concerns about halation and light piping.

 

[pbromaghin]

35mm substrate is thicker, because it needs to be stronger, even with holes punched in it.
120 substrate is thinner, because it needs to fit with the backing paper on the spool.
Plus there are all sorts of differing concerns about halation and light piping.

Ok, thank you. How about 35mm cine film, which I find to be quite a bit thinner than still film?

 

[koraks]

Don't know about the b&w stuff, but 35mm Vision3 isn't any thinner than e.g. Portra AFAIK. In fact, it seems slightly thicker with the remjet still on.

 

[pbromaghin]

Don't know about the b&w stuff, but 35mm Vision3 isn't any thinner than e.g. Portra AFAIK. In fact, it seems slightly thicker with the remjet still on.

Hmm. I just checked some of my processed film and Portra feels thinner than HP5. I don't have any Vision2 or 3 handy.

 

[MattKing]

Ilford HP5+ datasheet: "HP5 Plus 35mm film is coated on 0.125mm/5-mil acetate base"
Portra 160 datasheet:

The Eastman Kodak motion picture film datasheets don't seem to list details about substrate thickness.

 

[koraks]

The Eastman Kodak motion picture film datasheets don't seem to list details about substrate thickness.

No, but some scrounging the web suggests that Kodak's 35mm films are around 150-160um.

 

[pentaxuser]

Orthochromatic and panchromatic are two different things. Or has Ilford fooled us with the Ortho Plus ?

Yes they are but I don't think I have grasped the point you are making here Can you elucidate?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas71]

Ferrania Film = useless film so far...
Given very high prices showed by Kodak and Ilford Delta line and poor QC by Foma, Ferrania should try to produce a standard Panchromatic 100 ISO or 400 ISO in both 35 and 120 format... pheraps they would find more customers for their products

 

[Hassasin]

Ferrania Film = useless film so far...
Given very high prices showed by Kodak and Ilford Delta line and poor QC by Foma, Ferrania should try to produce a standard Panchromatic 100 ISO or 400 ISO in both 35 and 120 format... pheraps they would find more customers for their products

And as they just happily announced a srange second emulsion, probably not likely to happen. Sadly.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

P30 is not a useless film. I and others, find it to be a unique emulsion compared to other conventional B/W films. I look forward to a 120 version...and hopefully one day 4x5... as well as their Orto so that I can compare it with Ilford, and Rollei.

 

[pbromaghin]

Useless? From my first roll of the Alpha, at box speed in D-76:

I don't think so...

 

[Thomas71]

P30 is not a useless film. I and others, find it to be a unique emulsion compared to other conventional B/W films. I look forward to a 120 version...and hopefully one day 4x5... as well as their Orto so that I can compare it with Ilford, and Rollei.

Dear Andrew, P30 is a "unique emulsion", but it's addressed at a too narrow niche of users. The company can't survive with a such limited production; it can't amortize the fixed cost of plants, machinery and employee staff. It's a pity that Ferrania is not in condition to widen the range of film offer. There would be room for a "good value for money" 120 film, given the crazy prices we're seeing in the market

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Dear Andrew, P30 is a "unique emulsion", but it's addressed at a too narrow niche of users. The company can't survive with a such limited production; it can't amortize the fixed cost of plants, machinery and employee staff. It's a pity that Ferrania is not in condition to widen the range of film offer. There would be room for a "good value for money" 120 film, given the crazy prices we're seeing in the market

I agree with you about addressing a narrow niche... but they don't seem to be having any issues with selling P30. As far as other emulsions go (a conventional 100, or 400 speed B/W film), we'll have to give them some time for that to happen... if it ever does (I've not heard any discussions from them on this). They are positioned better now to offer P30 in 120. That's a good thing. That has to happen, in my opinion (not just because I'm pining for it ). Slow and steady wins the race.