Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 1, 2014

pentaxuser said:
Where are we at on this?

[...]

Anyone know?

From 4/22/14 (there was a url link here which no longer exists) references what I believe is still the most recent blog entry from Ferrania. They are acknowledging their schedule has slipped, but are asking everyone to "stay tuned..."

I wonder if they may have been forced to reevaluate their anticipated levels of production, given the intense online interest from still photographers, especially E-6 photographers. Originally they were, I believe, going to concentrate on 8/16mm motion picture film. A much smaller market. But with Kodak having tossed in the towel on E-6 and Fuji continuing to contract, interest in their efforts may have been higher than they expected?

Just speculating. But I wouldn't write them off yet...

Ken

AgX · Jul 1, 2014

One does not start production just because there is high demand?

What business logic is behind that conduct (other than cranking up prices) ?

StoneNYC · Jul 1, 2014

AgX said:
One does not start production just because there is high demand?

What business logic is behind that conduct (other than cranking up prices) ?

Well TIP did this and they are doing pretty well...

And I hope they don't just start with 35mm... I hope they come out with 127 and sheet film sizes, 4x5 and 8x10 as well.

It would be a shame if they only made 35mm for a long time, I hardly use that these days...

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 1, 2014

I believe their original plans may have been to start just with the 8/16mm movie film. They wanted to preserve that medium. I'm guessing the scope may have exploded after that goal went public?

Ken

omaha · Jul 1, 2014

I'd truly love to see them get to the finish line. Fingers crossed, best wishes, etc.

AgX · Jul 2, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
I believe their original plans may have been to start just with the 8/16mm movie film. They wanted to preserve that medium. I'm guessing the scope may have exploded after that goal went public?

Yes, I understand that. But the question whether to make cine or still film is just a question of conversion from the same masterroll, if one refrains from that rem-jet coating, as done before.

Nzoomed · Jul 3, 2014

AgX said:
Yes, I understand that. But the question whether to make cine or still film is just a question of conversion from the same masterroll, if one refrains from that rem-jet coating, as done before.

Did they ever produce cine film? I think there will be a big demand for E6 cine films, in the future, since that has a niche market for super8 etc.

Whats the deal with rem-jet backing anyway? Why doesnt C41 or E6 have it?

MattKing · Jul 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
Did they ever produce cine film? I think there will be a big demand for E6 cine films, in the future, since that has a niche market for super8 etc.

Whats the deal with rem-jet backing anyway? Why doesnt C41 or E6 have it?

Rem-jet is a very effective anti-halation backing. At the same time, it provides both excellent lubrication and dispersal of heat in high-speed cinema shooting.

It's downsides are that it adds complexity in processing.

Still films don't usually require or benefit from it significantly. The exception was Kodachrome, but that was because Kodachrome was always designed to be processed in high volume roller transport systems which were set up to process both slides and movies.

Nzoomed · Jul 3, 2014

MattKing said:
Rem-jet is a very effective anti-halation backing. At the same time, it provides both excellent lubrication and dispersal of heat in high-speed cinema shooting.

It's downsides are that it adds complexity in processing.

Still films don't usually require or benefit from it significantly. The exception was Kodachrome, but that was because Kodachrome was always designed to be processed in high volume roller transport systems which were set up to process both slides and movies.

OK that answers alot!
It probably is not really necessary for small format films, If they made cine film without remjet backing, it would make it a breeze to process. But i expect they will be making E6 cine film anyway, kodak still has the major market in negative cine film.

AgX · Jul 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
Did they ever produce cine film? I think there will be a big demand for E6 cine films, in the future, since that has a niche market for super8 etc.

Whats the deal with rem-jet backing anyway? Why doesnt C41 or E6 have it?

Yes, Ferrania made cine films. It was a manufacturer with a wide range.

And there was life before rem-jet too.
It is a feature introduced by the market leader and by that regarded as standard.

Xmas · Jul 3, 2014

Hi AgX

REMJET was only on ECN and Kodachrome?
note "'?'"

Noel

Xmas · Jul 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
OK that answers alot!
It probably is not really necessary for small format films, If they made cine film without remjet backing, it would make it a breeze to process. But i expect they will be making E6 cine film anyway, kodak still has the major market in negative cine film.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrania

Don't think E6 ever had REMJET.

cmacd123 · Jul 3, 2014

Rem-Jet is the Top Level of anti-halation, Anti-static, and positive lubrication systems for film, but because of the need to remove it as part of the processing steps, it is only found in in certain processes, Kodachrome, and ECN & ECN2 as well as older versions of ECP and ECP2. I am not sure if ME4 also featured rem jet removal.

It was phased out of of ECP, and the film redesigned with a process survivable anti-static / lubricating layer to eliminate a wash step, at about the same time that Silver tracks were replaced with dye tracks (again Cutting out a wash step with the cost of switching all the sound heads in every theatre projector to LED or Laser Light sources.)

When I first started playing with home processing of Cine Colour Negative, some of the Fuji Stocks did not have rem-jet, while all the Kodak stocks and the Agfa Stocks did. The AGFA rem-jet seemed to loosen easier than the Kodak. Alas AGFA was one of the first to discontinue their Movie Negative. ECN2 replaced the ECN in much the same manor as C41 replaced C22 and e6 replaced E4 - similar changes in times, temperatures and chemicals

The Ekatchrome E100D, T64 and the custom made stocks converted from various fuji transparency films did not use REM-JET, nor does the AviPhot 200D. So no e-6 does not have any provision for REM-Jet.

cmacd123 · Jul 3, 2014

OH and At one time Ferrania did make a cine Negative, but it was discontinued before my time so I am not sure if they used rem-jet at the time. Some European films were probably done of Ferrania Stock but I can't seem to search fro technical specs on IMDB.COM, perhaps you need the paid version. The two titles that came to mind show as shot on EASTMAN 50T 5241

AgX · Jul 3, 2014

Rem-Jet is the Top Level of anti-halation, Anti-static, and positive lubrication systems for film

As you indicated other substances have been found to coat films.

Nzoomed · Jul 3, 2014

From what i understand, ECN2 films are processed identical to c-41, except for the removal of the rem-jet backing.
If they produced such films without the rem-jet you would find they would be popular, since it would be alot easier to process.

MattKing · Jul 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
From what i understand, ECN2 films are processed identical to c-41, except for the removal of the rem-jet backing.
If they produced such films without the rem-jet you would find they would be popular, since it would be alot easier to process.

The two processes are similar, but not identical. ECN2 films are inherently of lower contrast, as they are designed to be printed on to film stock, rather than paper, and the ECN2 process is optimized with that in mind.

You can develop either film in either process, but your results will not be optimum. Some of the problems you encounter if you do may be correctable using digital means, but not all of them.

StoneNYC · Jul 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
From what i understand, ECN2 films are processed identical to c-41, except for the removal of the rem-jet backing.
If they produced such films without the rem-jet you would find they would be popular, since it would be alot easier to process.

Not true at all, the color couplers are different and I've seen PE warm that using C-41 with ECN-2 film may not have long color stability.

My own experiments with that yielded great reds but every other color was off.

Xmas · Jul 3, 2014

MattKing said:
The two processes are similar, but not identical. ECN2 films are inherently of lower contrast, as they are designed to be printed on to film stock, rather than paper, and the ECN2 process is optimized with that in mind.

You can develop either film in either process, but your results will not be optimum. Some of the problems you encounter if you do may be correctable using digital means, but not all of them.

You should really scratch mix the ECN developer rather than use C41. The colour couplers are different.

The ECN is nice film.

Nzoomed · Jul 3, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Not true at all, the dye stabilizers etc are different and I've seen PE warm that using C-41 with ECN-2 film may not have long color stability.

My own experiments with that yielded great reds but every other color was off.

OK, thats interesting, i asked on another thread regarding this and said it was the same. Either way i think that ECN2 films would be great in still cameras, there is a company that sells it loaded in 35mm canisters with the remjet removed and ready to go in a C41 lab.
Thats why i thought it was ok to use C41, they all said it was OK.

Does ECN-2 film have the orange mask like on C41 film?
I thought they had a clear base, but i saw a video on youtube of someone removing the remjet backing on some motion picture film and it had an orange mask.
Much nicer to scan clear film base, and that rollei CN200 has a clear base. Im keen to shoot some.

Xmas · Jul 3, 2014

The mask improves the colour of the shadows and highlights, it should not annoy a scanner.

The C41 and ECN colour developers are different.

The REMJET should only be removed post exposure.

AgX · Jul 3, 2014

The mask improves colour purity, at all densities.

The masks adds density. Density that could bring a scanner nearer to its noise. This is a sales argument by the industry.

Nzoomed · Jul 4, 2014

I thought the mask was used for colour correction when printing onto photographic paper?
Thats interesting to know.
If i get round to it, ill try and shoot some.

AgX · Jul 4, 2014

Yes, it is. It nevertheless would give better colour rendition in transparency film too, but the same time the mask remaining would spoil all that.

The working principle of that automated colour-correcting mask is that its basic density (as seen at the unexposed parts) is filtered out at the final product, which is not possible with slides.

Xmas · Jul 4, 2014

AgX said:
The mask improves colour purity, at all densities.

The masks adds density. Density that could bring a scanner nearer to its noise. This is a sales argument by the industry.

Well If you have a mid tone grey card you can get it grey (balance it) with a transparency or negative, but a similar card in shadows or highlights will not be grey with transparency but will be closer to grey with masked negative?

I normally had to balance each C41 film differently even from same multi tank.

You need to control contrast and exposure of colour film if you want to scan.

To be fair I gave up and used Kodachrome.

Noel

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Ken Nadvornick

AgX

StoneNYC

Ken Nadvornick

omaha

AgX

Nzoomed

MattKing

Moderator

Nzoomed

AgX

Xmas

Xmas

cmacd123

cmacd123

AgX

Nzoomed

MattKing

Moderator

StoneNYC

Xmas

Nzoomed

Xmas

AgX

Nzoomed

AgX

Xmas

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency