Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

[TheToadMen]

As they say on their website: "The L.R.F. is now the worldwide center for the rebirth of color film."

Let it be so.

BTW: L.R.F stand for: "Laboratori Richerche Fotografiche" (translated: Photographic Research Laboratory).
See the shield on the building behind their team:

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Thanks you Henning for the news!
Some are going to be very happy to see the L.R.F. and the news about 127 packaging!

 

[Nzoomed]

As they say on their website: "The L.R.F. is now the worldwide center for the rebirth of color film."

Let it be so.

BTW: L.R.F stand for: "Laboratori Richerche Fotografiche" (translated: Photographic Research Laboratory).
See the shield on the building behind their team:

View attachment 93730

Very interesting read, but surley Kodak And Fuji must have similar facilitys with small coating machines for research and small scale production?
If so, why is it such a big deal for Kodak to produce smaller production runs? They say its too expensive in the article, but if they do still indeed hold a small coating machine, why is production still out of the question for them?

 

[Xmas]

Very interesting read, but surley Kodak And Fuji must have similar facilitys with small coating machines for research and small scale production?
If so, why is it such a big deal for Kodak to produce smaller production runs? They say its too expensive in the article, but if they do still indeed hold a small coating machine, why is production still out of the question for them?

small coating machine means
- fixed overheads eg fat cat management
- small sales reducing in future
- small profit reducing or big loss increasing

Kodak increased cine $ by 15% (Jan'14) citing reduced sales impacting overheads ~ all of cine not just film

 

[AgX]

Reducing the size of the coater only partiallly reduces the fixed costs.

 

[RattyMouse]

Very interesting read, but surley Kodak And Fuji must have similar facilitys with small coating machines for research and small scale production?
If so, why is it such a big deal for Kodak to produce smaller production runs? They say its too expensive in the article, but if they do still indeed hold a small coating machine, why is production still out of the question for them?

Kodak has to support building 38, which is an enormous factory. Those costs make Kodak's situation far worse off than Ferrania's.

Kodak tried to sell off building 38 to the Hollywood studios but they know that this building is unsustainable and so declined to buy it.

Thank god for Ferrania!

 

[Xmas]

Kodak has to support building 38, which is an enormous factory. Those costs make Kodak's situation far worse off than Ferrania's.

Kodak tried to sell off building 38 to the Hollywood studios but they know that this building is unsustainable and so declined to buy it.

Thank god for Ferrania!

Suggest simplistic as building 38 allowed Kodak to support the volume required from 2006 and maximise profit.
The market in 2005 allowed Kodak to close down film coating lines eg in UK and France...
The volume needed today is a fraction of 2006 but the largest fraction of manufacturing cost is input materials not works salaries/wages!
So film profit is still large eg even if the coater is run less often.
A small coater is (probably) less efficient in terms of sq inches area per $ but needs less $ invested per coat run.
The studios balked at buying building 38 cause they can use digital, without up front $.
Kodak should/could have sold 38 in 2005, when you wait until the cow is dead you don't get a good price, or they have milked it dry, or whatever analogue you want.
Ferrani can do shorter prototype runs until they can reproduce their 2009 film. Then they need people to buy.
There are people who use still 16 mm cine both movie and subminiture, 35mm, 120, ... but E6 labs are more difficult, by the day.
Stopped using E6 100% about 2005, C41 100% 2008, convenient labs closed, postal system lossy.
If I needed to shoot a wedding I got enough E6 or C41 in fridge just need home kits or chemicals.
The last wedding I had invite to was bring blad and mono...

 

[ME Super]

We want to be able to afford Ferrania's offerings, at the same time we want them to be profitable so they will continue to make film. Hitting that balance is the tricky part. So much would go to waste if the Big Boy coater was used, even though it's probably more efficient in terms of $/m2. The smaller coater, though it may be less efficient in terms of $/m2 coated, should be more profitable for them because they can make coatings to fit the size of the market. EK seems to have such high fixed legacy costs that it may not be profitable for them to switch to their research coater for production coatings. That is very sad, because I really liked Kodak's E-6 films. While I don't shoot much C-41, Kodak's C-41 offerings are very good. I just never did like the look of prints, preferring the vividness of the projected slide. By using a hybrid process, I have gotten good looking slides from color negative film in recent years, but discussing of such techniques is verboten here. Let's just say you can send a CD of images to Dwayne's and for $1.10 each they'll send the files through their film recorder and you'll get good looking slides back. I've used this to get square images made into slides that will fit my 35mm projector. The results look similar to the 126 slides of my youth!

Go Film Ferrania! Long live film!

 

[alanrockwood]

Would it be a good idea for Ferrania to also start an E6 lab, just to be sure customers can get processing done? Also, if E6 chemicals disappear maybe they could arrange for a supply... maybe not practical ideas, but who knows?

 

[Xmas]

Would it be a good idea for Ferrania to also start an E6 lab, just to be sure customers can get processing done? Also, if E6 chemicals disappear maybe they could arrange for a supply... maybe not practical ideas, but who knows?

You should be able to get chemicals even if kits and photo suppliers disappear, as standard lab chemicals, and mix from scratch with a micro balance.
E6 is not difficult to do at home in bathroom with changing bag, even for me.
There are E6 labs about still in London, but not on a few blocks away or 24/7 any more.
The disappear when you least expect.
The inconvenience will stop some people using E6.
If you have a cine camera you need a lab with a continuous processor for 100 feet.
Id only use it in 120 or 35mm to shoot a wedding it stopped being convenient for 100% of shooting about 2005.

 

[RattyMouse]

Suggest simplistic as building 38 allowed Kodak to support the volume required from 2006 and maximise profit.
The market in 2005 allowed Kodak to close down film coating lines eg in UK and France...
The volume needed today is a fraction of 2006 but the largest fraction of manufacturing cost is input materials not works salaries/wages!
So film profit is still large eg even if the coater is run less often.

You are incorrect. There are enormous expenses owning and operating, or even not operating large manufacturing plants. It is not possible to just idle a plant and expect that there are no costs involved.

 

[Nzoomed]

Would it be a good idea for Ferrania to also start an E6 lab, just to be sure customers can get processing done? Also, if E6 chemicals disappear maybe they could arrange for a supply... maybe not practical ideas, but who knows?

Yes i suggested this on their feedback survey on the ferrania site, i suggested it mainly for cine film, as if they could offer it with prepaid processing, they would ensure themselves that their customers will be able to process the stuff, i suggest you submit this suggestion to them too, i think its essential for them to keep sales up.

Back to building #38, i take it that this is the only facility left that Kodak is running for film production?
From what i understand it only makes cine film, but if so, where is ektar and portra made?

They must use their research coater from time to time, as vision3 is their latest cine film stock, so i expect this was their last film to have been developed in that facility?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Back to building #38, i take it that this is the only facility left that Kodak is running for film production?...

Yes, that's Eastman Kodak's last film production facility.

...From what i understand it only makes cine film, but if so, where is ektar and portra made?...

Incorrect. All Eastman Kodak film production coating, cinema (for shooting and projecting) and still (black and white as well as color), takes place on Building 38's line.

 

[Xmas]

You are incorrect. There are enormous expenses owning and operating, or even not operating large manufacturing plants. It is not possible to just idle a plant and expect that there are no costs involved.

True and Kodak are in that domain with building 38, but their margin was so high that they 'only' needed to increase cine by 15% cause of the reduced/ing demand... wont have helped sales.

http://investor.kodak.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=31235-14-5

They instead blame digital if you dont like gory details.

 

[Nzoomed]

Pretty ironic that the very thing that Kodak invented (the digital camera) back in the 70's actually has killed off Kodak's core business!
And to top it off, all their digital cameras were crap, and now they dont even make those!
Fuji were smart and were able to compete on the digital market.
I do hope that Kodak do someday perhaps produce a decent digital camera, but really at the end of the day, cameras have never really been Kodak's Forte, let alone digital, but it would be good to see their legacy live on in photography, hopefully in film for some years yet.

 

[cmacd123]

They must use their research coater from time to time, as vision3 is their latest cine film stock, so i expect this was their last film to have been developed in that facility?

Kodak and Fuji were in a lot of "arms Race" battles, from the time that Green Film boxes first showed up in North America.

The Vison, Vison 2 and Vison three lines all came out to out manoeuvre Fuji in the Motion picture space, which Fuji has vacated. without further competition, it is unlikely that the current stocks will have any further research done on them. Portra and Ektar are modest re-workings of the Vison line of stocks with C-41 compatible components instead of the motion picture compatible ones, Possibly 50-75% different but based on the same ideas. No work is likely to be done to change them.

E6 is toast, here Kodak threw in the towel and left the remaining market to Fuji.

I can picture cobwebs already forming on the research coating facilities, and I would guess that changing Vison 2 to Vison 3 was NOT a major overhaul.

Ferrania is already quite happy to let the owners of the facility Scrap the "Production" coating line, figuring on using what was built as the reseacrh coater do all their production. they will not be carrying the costs of maintaining that facility. Kodak has to keep building 38 heated and maintained even if it does one batch of film a month. Those costs will be applied to everything that is produced. Alaris was wise to NOT commit to long term supply contracts.

 

[cmacd123]

Pretty ironic that the very thing that Kodak invented (the digital camera) back in the 70's actually has killed off Kodak's core business!
I do hope that Kodak do someday perhaps produce a decent digital camera, but really at the end of the day, cameras have never really been Kodak's Forte,

Kodak was always rather good at making cameras, but not the sort of camera loved at APUG. From the start, though the Borwnie, and instamatic eras. Kodak made Darn good cameras. Simple to use, lightweight. rugged, inexpensive and durable. the sort of camera you could take to the beach, get the odd splash on, stick in a drawer and have come out several moths later and still make colour picture that the average working stiff could pass around to show the family and the neighbours. They also made VERY high end cameras and lenes for science and the Military as well as space applications.

Digital camera are more about electronics than Optics these days, and so it is not surprising that they carry names like Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. Kodak actually was getting some licensing revenue form them, but they Blew that in the bankruptcy by selling the patents, as their leaders did not see their future in imagie recording.

 

[RattyMouse]

Pretty ironic that the very thing that Kodak invented (the digital camera) back in the 70's actually has killed off Kodak's core business!
And to top it off, all their digital cameras were crap, and now they dont even make those!
Fuji were smart and were able to compete on the digital market.
I do hope that Kodak do someday perhaps produce a decent digital camera, but really at the end of the day, cameras have never really been Kodak's Forte, let alone digital, but it would be good to see their legacy live on in photography, hopefully in film for some years yet.

Fujifilm was NOT smart, or at least, not smart as you suggest. Fujifilm is a success today because they moved heaven and earth to get away from photographic businesses. If you look at Fujifilm's numbers, they are a total failure at selling digital cameras. Their revenue from digital cameras is a measly 3-4% of their total sales. Had Fujifilm bet the farm on their digital cameras, they would have ended up bankrupt and failed just like Kodak.

Read Fujifilm's financials. Go back 10 years. Every year, Fujfilm has LOST money on their digital cameras. Every. Year.

Thom Hogan wrote a column recently about Fuji saying something like, Fujifilm could flush their entire digital camera division down the drain and INCREASE their profits.

True words.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak was always rather good at making cameras, but not the sort of camera loved at APUG. From the start, though the Borwnie, and instamatic eras. Kodak made Darn good cameras. Simple to use, lightweight. rugged, inexpensive and durable. the sort of camera you could take to the beach, get the odd splash on, stick in a drawer and have come out several moths later and still make colour picture that the average working stiff could pass around to show the family and the neighbours. They also made VERY high end cameras and lenes for science and the Military as well as space applications.

Digital camera are more about electronics than Optics these days, and so it is not surprising that they carry names like Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. Kodak actually was getting some licensing revenue form them, but they Blew that in the bankruptcy by selling the patents, as their leaders did not see their future in imagie recording.

Did Kodak ever grind their own lenses for their science and military applications?

And digital cameras need high end optics just as much as film cameras do. With every massive increase in sensor resolution, current lenses begin to show their faults.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Digital cameras can correct some lens distortions and abberations automatically, so you can save some money on optics compared to film where the corrections either have to be done in glass, in the darkroom, or sucked up.

 

[AgX]

Would it be a good idea for Ferrania to also start an E6 lab, just to be sure customers can get processing done?

There is still no problem in most parts of Europe getting E-6 in types 120 and 135 processed. One can choose between industrial and small labs.

 

[baachitraka]

I would say if they distribute some E-6 chemicals, so small labs can spring up in the corner. Pretty excited to see their first roll.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I would say if they distribute some E-6 chemicals so small labs can spring up in the corner. Pretty excited to see their first roll.

Meanwhile, you can watch some of their films:

[video=youtube_share;mLOByPSJk5I]http://youtu.be/mLOByPSJk5I[/video]

 

[Henning Serger]

Very interesting read, but surley Kodak And Fuji must have similar facilitys with small coating machines for research and small scale production?

Of course they also have pilot coaters / very small coating machines for research and QC. But besides the fixed cost problems the other members have already explained, there is the question which dimensions their pilot coaters really have. Are they so small that only tests can be done with them, or do they have bigger dimensions so that even small(er) production runs can be done with them.
One example:
The pilot coater at Ilford is designed for tests only. You cannot do production runs with this machine. At the Ilford factory tour we saw a demonstration of this machine: coating directly in front of your eyes. Awesome!!
The pilot coater at Film Ferrania is much bigger in comparison: Small production runs are possible.This machine was used in the past not only for research and testing, but also for market tests, when limited runs were given to selected photographers to test films under daily shooting conditions.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hi Alan,

Would it be a good idea for Ferrania to also start an E6 lab, just to be sure customers can get processing done?

in the major markets we have enough E6 developing capacity at labs. And the clever labs extend their services, especially their mail-order offerings.
E.g. in Spain the very trendy and marketing active "Carmencita Film Lab" just recently added E6 service to their C41 and BW film development.

And , by the way, one of the initiators of the new Film Ferrania, Marco Pagni, is running a cine film lab in Italy. Maybe he will extend the services of his lab.

Also, if E6 chemicals disappear maybe they could arrange for a supply...

E6 development chemistry will not disappear! That is one of the numerous apug myths, it is nonsens.
We have currently one E6 film manufacturer, Fujifilm, and hopefully two in the future with Film Ferrania.
And we have four (!) manufacturers of E6 chemistry. More than enough for the future.

Best regards,
Henning