Ferrania P30 available

[Andrew O'Neill]

You're remembering wrong... That's not what the money was for. It was to purchase three specific machines from the old Ferrania factory, and put them in storage for the day when they'd be able to use them. Meanwhile, at the time, they had a small production facility (a testing lab) available, and they had materials enough to produce a small batch of color reversal film. This was to be the Kickstarter reward.

They did save the machines, so the Kickstarter project was successful. Making that small batch of film, on the other hand, turned out to be impossible, for various reasons, so they offered us alternative stakes in the first "new old" film, the P30, that they're now making, with some outside help, to establish a revenue stream that can enable them to continue working toward larger scale in-house manufacturing of that and other film types, including color reversal film.

And that is how I understood it. Not sure why people still don't get it. They must not have read/followed the updates over the years.

 

[film_man]

And that is how I understood it. Not sure why people still don't get it. They must not have read/followed the updates over the years.

Ok so technically yes they wanted to get the three machines. Here's that page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film/description Scroll down to the little pie chart, The Budget, which shows how they would spend the money. But the problem was that they did not just need to buy the three machines. They needed to move them, wire them, get water/gas/electricity routed to them plus a myriad other things and that is where all the problems were. Because these things needed money. And there was no money. So it matters not what the ask for, what matters is what money was needed for. Clearly they did not "already have everything" they needed to make film. Either they did not know that or they did not think they had to budget for it. Anyway, it is what it is.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I was critical without having much knowledge of the project. I still dislike a number of things about this whole operation, but i will say this: anything Kickstarter is gamble, some of those campaigns are based on lies or half-truths at best, some are honest but not always successful, the rest are somewhere in between. I do hope film is with us to stay and it does appear Ferrania has system in place to produce at least one B&W film. I will buy the FP30 for my own needs, so not a lot, partly to support its production while hoping it will expand. If it does it can only be good news for the whole community who still shoot film and want to draw the young for future proof demand.

I am certain shooting film teaches what digital never will and that is why I appreciate Ferrania's efforts.

 

[railwayman3]

Ok so technically yes they wanted to get the three machines. Here's that page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film/description Scroll down to the little pie chart, The Budget, which shows how they would spend the money. But the problem was that they did not just need to buy the three machines. They needed to move them, wire them, get water/gas/electricity routed to them plus a myriad other things and that is where all the problems were. Because these things needed money. And there was no money. So it matters not what the ask for, what matters is what money was needed for. Clearly they did not "already have everything" they needed to make film. Either they did not know that or they did not think they had to budget for it. Anyway, it is what it is.

Many years ago, during my business and economics degree studies, I remember the tutor saying something along the lines of "If a bank or investor rejects your proposed business project, take it to a second bank. If that bank or investor also rejects it, go home and review the whole idea. It may be that it's just not viable as it stands. Or maybe it's just some ideal project which YOU would like to do, and your rose-tinted glasses are blinding you to whether it would work in the real world".

At that time there was no such thing as Kickstarter, but maybe a lot of the projects now offered would have fallen within the above.

 

[tih]

Ok so technically yes they wanted to get the three machines. Here's that page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film/description Scroll down to the little pie chart, The Budget, which shows how they would spend the money. But the problem was that they did not just need to buy the three machines. They needed to move them, wire them, get water/gas/electricity routed to them plus a myriad other things and that is where all the problems were.

No, they didn't need to get those machines operable at all. The Kickstarter project was just to buy them and get them into safe storage. The 25% of the budget allocated to Kickstarter rewards was to finance the use of already in-place equipment and materials to produce color reversal film.

 

[film_man]

No, they didn't need to get those machines operable at all. The Kickstarter project was just to buy them and get them into safe storage. The 25% of the budget allocated to Kickstarter rewards was to finance the use of already in-place equipment and materials to produce color reversal film.

Well whatever it was it wasn't enough.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ok so technically yes they wanted to get the three machines. Here's that page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film/description Scroll down to the little pie chart, The Budget, which shows how they would spend the money. But the problem was that they did not just need to buy the three machines. They needed to move them, wire them, get water/gas/electricity routed to them plus a myriad other things and that is where all the problems were. Because these things needed money. And there was no money. So it matters not what the ask for, what matters is what money was needed for. Clearly they did not "already have everything" they needed to make film. Either they did not know that or they did not think they had to budget for it. Anyway, it is what it is.

Yes. It is what it is. So lets just leave it and let them get on with it...

 

[faberryman]

Yes. It is what it is. So lets just leave it and let them get on with it...

Best way to do that is close the thread. Start a new one when they have some film available.

 

[foc]

Many years ago, during my business and economics degree studies, I remember the tutor saying something along the lines of "If a bank or investor rejects your proposed business project, take it to a second bank. If that bank or investor also rejects it, go home and review the whole idea. It may be that it's just not viable as it stands. Or maybe it's just some ideal project which YOU would like to do, and your rose-tinted glasses are blinding you to whether it would work in the real world".

At that time there was no such thing as Kickstarter, but maybe a lot of the projects now offered would have fallen within the above.

Very well said and IMO very true to this scenario.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Very well said and IMO very true to this scenario.

Not sure how this is "so very true to this scenario". Comparing to New55, Ferrania seems to be far ahead in production consistency and making actual product that can be processed with predictability, and the "rose-tinted glasses" remark is to me is more out of place than fitting here.

 

[Wayne]

Why did they have to name it the same as a pre-existing, defunct photographic product? Are they that unimaginative with names or is it a deliberate attempt to get former Ilfochrome lovers like me to look?

 

[tih]

Well whatever it was it wasn't enough.

We won't ever really know that, will we, seeing as how other problems got in the way of any attempt to do that production run?

 

[tih]

Best way to do that is close the thread. Start a new one when they have some film available.

What part of https://www.filmferrania.com/ don't you understand?

 

[Rudeofus]

Many years ago, during my business and economics degree studies, I remember the tutor saying something along the lines of "If a bank or investor rejects your proposed business project, take it to a second bank. If that bank or investor also rejects it, go home and review the whole idea. It may be that it's just not viable as it stands. Or maybe it's just some ideal project which YOU would like to do, and your rose-tinted glasses are blinding you to whether it would work in the real world".

At that time there was no such thing as Kickstarter, but maybe a lot of the projects now offered would have fallen within the above.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that most of Silicon Valley was not funded by bank investments. No bank would have ever funded the startups of Redhat, Oracle, SUN, HP, Apple, Yahoo, Intel, Tesla, you name it. Step out of Silicon Valley, and add Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon to that list. All these companies founders would have been laughed out the door, and are now worth more than many midsized banks which laughed the loudest.

Dinosaurs don't fund mammals.

 

[Rudeofus]

PS: Investors are sometimes a little more willing to take on risk and fund "crazy" ideas, but many successful unicorn company founders will tell you, that they went to dozens of VCs and business angels, before anyone bought into their idea.

 

[railwayman3]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that most of Silicon Valley was not funded by bank investments. No bank would have ever funded the startups of Redhat, Oracle, SUN, HP, Apple, Yahoo, Intel, Tesla, you name it. Step out of Silicon Valley, and add Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon to that list. All these companies founders would have been laughed out the door, and are now worth more than many midsized banks which laughed the loudest.

Dinosaurs don't fund mammals.

Certainly there are always exceptions to every rule, and your list is of a few exceptional companies. But don't forget that at least some of these companies were started by one or two people "in their bedroom or garage" with their own money scraped together by such risks as mortgaging their house. Quite a few of the top UK companies also started from a single shop or a market stall. But up to 57% of new small businesses in the UK don't last five years, while most of the remainder, while successful, remain small (UK government statistics). Maybe some should have listened to the dinosaurs ?
If Kickstarter didn't exist, the owners of new businesses would have to be confident enough commit their own money, which might make them think through the plans more carefully ?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Certainly there are always exceptions to every rule, and your list is of a few exceptional companies. But don't forget that at least some of these companies were started by one or two people
"in their garage" with their own money scraped together by such

I believe the point is that tanking an idea after second bank refusal only means ... willingness to give up all too quickly and not really a sound advice.

 

[railwayman3]

I believe the point is that tanking an idea after second bank refusal only means ... willingness to give up all too quickly and not really a sound advice.

I never suggested tanking an idea after a second bank refusal. The point was that, given a few refusals by experienced investors, it would be a sensible idea to review the plan to see why it wasn't considered viable in its existing form.
And, despite Rudeofus' obvious contempt for banks, they do have some business experience, and didn't get where they are by backing doubtful projects.
A new business needs all the advice it can get, even if it's sometimes negative.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I never suggested tanking an idea after a second bank refusal. The point was that, given a few refusals by experienced investors, it would be a sensible idea to review the plan to see why it wasn't considered viable in its existing form.
And, despite Rudeofus' obvious contempt for banks, they do have some business experience, and didn't get where they are by backing doubtful projects.
A new business needs all the advice it can get, even if it's sometimes negative.

OK then, it is always a good idea to review a business plan, even after money come in. So I guess we're on the same page. At the same time, one thing is to review it, another to force a change even if such a review does not show any wrongs. Not that you are saying that, just so review is to look it over and if all still fits, perhaps the sales pitch was off, not the idea itself?

 

[Rudeofus]

And, despite Rudeofus' obvious contempt for banks, they do have some business experience, and didn't get where they are by backing doubtful projects.
A new business needs all the advice it can get, even if it's sometimes negative.

Banks backed a range of very "innovative" financial products in the years up to 2007/2008, and taxpayer had to pay through nose and ears to pay for these follies. What they thought was wisdom and business savvy, turned out to be a bunch of herd instinct and moral hazard in charge of operations. It's just when it comes to technical ideas, that banks are seemingly absent and irrelevant. That's why I don't buy into the "if banks turned them down already, normal people shouldn't have funded them through other means like this newfangled kickstarter thing" theme.

Ferrania put up an honest proposal to save three machines from destruction and to make some E-6 film with remaining chemistry stock. I'm not sure Ferrania even bothered asking a bank or two for initial funding. Ferrania ultimately failed to deliver the promised reward for up to then unknown reasons outside their control, as has been stated here and elsewhere multiple times.

Yes, Ferrania failed to deliver the promised rewards, and all the armchair experts and Monday morning quarterbacks may now recite their "I told you so" tune. All the non-experts among us can now return to looking forward to new Ferrania products, which would not have been possible without this initial funding round.

 

[faberryman]

All the non-experts among us can now return to looking forward to new Ferrania products, which would not have been possible without this initial funding round.

Or not.

 

[film_man]

We won't ever really know that, will we, seeing as how other problems got in the way of any attempt to do that production run?

"other problems" indeed. Look, you can split hairs all you want but the kickstarter was pretty specific in what it promised. Some money goes to buy the machinery. Some money goes to "packing and shipping the rewards". It is very specific in the language it uses.

If you help us meet our goal, you get the first batch of film.
It’s that simple.

We already have everything we need to make the film!

So if they had all they needed for the rewards what did the other problems have to do with anything? Ah...yes so maybe it wasn't that straightforward. In fact, given that the campaign raised more than needed, the had more than they planned for the rewards and more than they planned for the machines. So what was the issue? Yes the issues are pretty detailed in the updates so no need to reiterate then, yet that hardly matches the We already have everything we need to make the film! statement.

Anyway, I understand the risk of kickstarter (this is not the only campaign I've funded) and I'm not complaining about spending $70 on a promise of maybe getting some film. But at some point, when you try to build a business and you try to execute a business plan if you keep hitting "other problems" you have to stop blaming "others" and start thinking that maybe your plan wasn't that well thought through.

That's all from me on this thread.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

"other problems" indeed. Look, you can split hairs all you want but the kickstarter was pretty specific in what it promised. Some money goes to buy the machinery. Some money goes to "packing and shipping the rewards". It is very specific in the language it uses.

If you help us meet our goal, you get the first batch of film.
It’s that simple.

We already have everything we need to make the film!

So if they had all they needed for the rewards what did the other problems have to do with anything? Ah...yes so maybe it wasn't that straightforward. In fact, given that the campaign raised more than needed, the had more than they planned for the rewards and more than they planned for the machines. So what was the issue? Yes the issues are pretty detailed in the updates so no need to reiterate then, yet that hardly matches the We already have everything we need to make the film! statement.

Anyway, I understand the risk of kickstarter (this is not the only campaign I've funded) and I'm not complaining about spending $70 on a promise of maybe getting some film. But at some point, when you try to build a business and you try to execute a business plan if you keep hitting "other problems" you have to stop blaming "others" and start thinking that maybe your plan wasn't that well thought through.

That's all from me on this thread.

As I was not even aware of this campaign until this thread started, thanks for enlightening (for me at least) quotation from language used. If that's as clear as this part is, barring some other parts that perhaps wold have put this one in a different perspective, they sure rode a thin line between a lie and a half-truth. Hopefully their current language calling P30 being in continues production is not hiding any other "truths". While not an excuse I can think of a few ways to explain the implied certainty of film production, but what is the point of doing that. I'll sit on this and my 2 rolls of FP30 watching from a side line. When I see a 120 format being out out, better yet bulk rolls of of 46mm FP30, then I'll be sold on what they are saying right now.

 

[Rudeofus]

"other problems" indeed. Look, you can split hairs all you want but the kickstarter was pretty specific in what it promised. Some money goes to buy the machinery. Some money goes to "packing and shipping the rewards". It is very specific in the language it uses.

I did not get the impression back then, that "packing and shipping" were the only remaining tasks towards the promised rewards. IIRC, there were some chems left, which could have been used to coat a single last master roll of E-6 film. The kickstarter campaign was quite clear, that this coating would have to take place, before any reward could be made. Since you are not exactly new to this forum, I would assume you know, that coating is a difficult task and prone to failure. Ferrania was an abandoned site, when they made that pledge, not an ongoing operation.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I did not get the impression back then, that "packing and shipping" were the only remaining tasks towards the promised rewards. IIRC, there were some chems left, which could have been used to coat a single last master roll of E-6 film. The kickstarter campaign was quite clear, that this coating would have to take place, before any reward could be made. Since you are not exactly new to this forum, I would assume you know, that coating is a difficult task and prone to failure. Ferrania was an abandoned site, when they made that pledge, not an ongoing operation.

Yeah, coating is difficult. Yet, the point was the specificity of language used. They could have easily been more vague in campaign description, or less assuring. Possibly this only shows us how they couldn't tell that ... hole from a hole in the ground and never anticipated coating difficulties in a dead factory that used to operate years before. Or they could, just chose to look the other way. Or, the knew what was there to be known and hoped for the best. So, here is my review of their business plan, yet I do hope this will provide the market with at least another B&W on sustainable basis, and by that I also mean prices that can be considered competitive with what else is out and running.