Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Nzoomed · Sep 19, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I don't think you understand, some of the patents that they use are still used in the film that they currently produce, it would be foolish for them to share that information because it would allow the other film companies to have knowledge that they spent millions of dollars producing and it would cut into the profits of the films that they still produce which of course are barely making money on as it is...

Yes, but im talking about if Kodak stops all film production, then there would not be an issue with them licencing their patents since they wouldnt be competing in a film market.

Anyway, i have a question for you PE, and that is regarding maskless C41 films, do you think there would be any benefit to consumers in the future with negative films without the orange mask?
As i understand, this was only used for colour correction when printing optically onto another film medium or photographic paper etc.

Since most people scan their films today, would this be of some benefit to the consumer?

I see that the rollei digibase CN200 is made from a maskless agfa film stock, and i thought that i would share such feedback to film ferranis on this aspect.

Photo Engineer · Sep 19, 2014

The mask is not in the film stock, it is built into the emulsion and forms a positive image which corrects for any color error. Color error is in all E6 films but is virtually absent in C41 and ECN stocks.

Take a look at some color from the 30s or 40s and compare them to today's films. You will see quite a difference. Most of these changes can easily bee seen or graphed out. If you wish, I can do some graphs. But, I have and have used a lot of masked color neg.. Never again!

PE

Photo Engineer · Sep 20, 2014

My last post, in the last sentence should read:

"Bud, I have graphed these out and have used a lot of masked and unmasked color negative films.... Never again will I willingly use an unmasked color negative film!

PE

Sal Santamaura · Sep 20, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
...shown digitally in the cinema, which has been the case for several years now, and a real bugbear of mine, bring back film print projection...

That course reversal will happen right after Eastman Kodak finds the capacity of Building 38 inadequate to its production needs and initiates a facility expansion.

Roger Cole · Sep 20, 2014

I can't tell any difference in film or digital projection in the theater. I can in the pre movie ads which are often lower resolution to the point of pixelation but not in the movies themselves. Sorry, I just can't.

And far more often I watch at home now - on my home theater screen from my 1080p projector - digital of course. Looks great.

Obviously I'm on APUG and love film but for rather other reasons than as a medium for my latest movie viewing.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Xmas · Sep 20, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I can't tell any difference in film or digital projection in the theater. I can in the pre movie ads which are often lower resolution to the point of pixelation but not in the movies themselves. Sorry, I just can't.

And far more often I watch at home now - on my home theater screen from my 1080p projector - digital of course. Looks great.

Obviously I'm on APUG and love film but for rather other reasons than as a medium for my latest movie viewing.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Hi Roger

40 Hail Mary's

Noel

RattyMouse · Sep 20, 2014

Rudeofus said:
If these patents cover only technologies used for Ektar, then they could still make something like E100VS ...

Remember folks, patents expire.

Roger Cole · Sep 20, 2014

Xmas said:
Hi Roger

40 Hail Mary's

Noel

I'm not Catholic.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

ME Super · Sep 20, 2014

Those should be Hail Ansels, not Hail Marys.

cmacd123 · Sep 20, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
And the patents for Ektar would have worked in any film because it included emulsion and coupler technology. Keep in mind that these patents do teach some core technology leading to good color and fine grain and they must work "for one skilled in the art". In other words, the parts not there are easily found by a photo engineer.

Were those in the batch of patents that Kodak sold for a lot less than they were expecting to Microsoft and their friends? If the upstart film producers see anything useful, perhaps they can licence the technology from Silicon valley. I think the deal was Kodak sold the patents while keeping a royalty licence for their own products.

Photo Engineer · Sep 20, 2014

These patents were not sold. Also, they included the formulas for Portra. And, patents do expire, in 18 years. So, do you want to wait that long in case Ferrania wants to license them? (BTW, Disney forced a new change to the patent law which changes the enforcement period. This was done so that they could keep the Mickey Mouse logo and etc. I'm not going to look any of this up so you guys break a leg!)

PE

Nzoomed · Sep 20, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
These patents were not sold. Also, they included the formulas for Portra. And, patents do expire, in 18 years. So, do you want to wait that long in case Ferrania wants to license them? (BTW, Disney forced a new change to the patent law which changes the enforcement period. This was done so that they could keep the Mickey Mouse logo and etc. I'm not going to look any of this up so you guys break a leg!)

PE

lol
I wouldnt have thought that the mickey mouse logo was considered a patent!
Its more of a trademark! Besides Mickey mouse is donkeys years old and they have kept it all this time.
Disney never cease to surprise me, they are also trying to challenge the musician Deadmau5 and claim his mouse logo looks too much like mickey mouse and are trying to block him from registering the trademark despite it successfully being registered in other countries.
Anyway, im sure there is plenty of ways the engineers at ferrania can work around these patents if they have to, people do it all the time and it seems you only have to change something slightly to get away with it.

We have seen plenty of examples with samsung vs apple.

Photo Engineer · Sep 20, 2014

Yes, my error. I believe that both patent and copyright law were changed at the same time and under the Disney urging. Now, you have me and with my thanks. There is the patent extension law: Dead Link Removed which I found dreadfully vague, so if someone can tell us the "real" lifetime of a patent (and a copyright) please go ahead.

Bottom line? Kodak did not sell any patents on film or paper.

PE

Xmas · Sep 21, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Yes, my error. I believe that both patent and copyright law were changed at the same time and under the Disney urging. Now, you have me and with my thanks. There is the patent extension law: Dead Link Removed which I found dreadfully vague, so if someone can tell us the "real" lifetime of a patent (and a copyright) please go ahead.

Bottom line? Kodak did not sell any patents on film or paper.

PE

I thought they licenced some instant patents to Fugi after the courts stopped their infringement?

But enhancing an E6 process would require some $ only justifiably if it meant a small % increase in a large market.

More likely they might try some way of making the film cheaper or just put up the price.

Nzoomed · Sep 21, 2014

Xmas said:
I thought they licenced some instant patents to Fugi after the courts stopped their infringement?

But enhancing an E6 process would require some $ only justifiably if it meant a small % increase in a large market.

More likely they might try some way of making the film cheaper or just put up the price.

The interesting thing is that Kodak invented the E6 process and then all the other film manufacturers slowly switched over much in the same manner as C41.

I expect there was patents on Ektachrome when it came out, but the question is, did Fuji and Agfa and any other film company that produced E6 films have to licence this technology from kodak, or was this not covered in the patents?

AgX · Sep 21, 2014

The change to Kodak processes varied strongly between the competing manufacturers.
It was driven by the respective market share of Kodak materials and the need of the comperitors to adjust to that.

This move was contrary to another approach: to control the market just by propriatary processes.

Nzoomed · Sep 21, 2014

AgX said:
The change to Kodak processes varied strongly between the competing manufacturers.
It was driven by the respective market share of Kodak materials and the need of the comperitors to adjust to that.

This move was contrary to another approach: to control the market just by propriatary processes.

Which was basically what was done with Kodachrome K-14 processing

Photo Engineer · Sep 21, 2014

When Kodak lost the Polaroid law suit, they licensed their instant patents to Fuji. IDK the exact time frame. Kodak never kept their color processes proprietary except for the flagship product, Kodachrome. It too was used though by both Fuji and Konica as Kodak was not very restrictive in their use of the Kodachrome process.

Kodak tried to give away the latest Kodachrome process and failed.

PE

ME Super · Sep 21, 2014

Yup. Kodak abandoned the patent on the K-14 process, so anyone that wanted to use it could without having to pay Kodak any licensing/royalty fees.

Prof_Pixel · Sep 21, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
When Kodak lost the Polaroid law suit, they licensed their instant patents to Fuji. IDK the exact time frame.

Actually, Kodak had licensed the instant technology to Fuji BEFORE the Polaroid lawsuit. Polaroid choose to sue only Kodak in the US and Canada. Kodak traded off the instant technology dye releaser technology to Fuji for some reversal dye couplers.

cmacd123 · Sep 21, 2014

I had heard that because of Kodak's Dominat Market share, that the FTC or someone had made them promise to licence any new technology to their competitors on some sort of Commercial basis. So that for example when 126 and 110 came out, the competition was able to release both film and cameras at the same time.

I think I mentioned the oter day being amused when 110 came out that GAF originally released their 110 film as Process C-22, when fuji came out with C-41 in 110. Gaf of course soon exited the Photo business. Fuji rapidly migrated all their colour negative to C-41.

The same restrictions on Kodak were supposed to be the reason that Kodachrome was sold without processing included by default in the USA market while it was sold with processing included everywhere else. I recall as a child my uncle moaning that he had needed to buy extra Kodachrome movie film on a trip to the states, and he got a bill for processing before he could get his movies back, when he mailed it in to Toronto 15. (such a big product at the time that if you mailed a roll to Kodachrome Processing Laboratory Toronto 15 Ontario it would get to the right place)

No doubt Kodak was allowed to charge a royalty for the use of their ideas.

Prof_Pixel · Sep 21, 2014

cmacd123 said:
I had heard that because of Kodak's Dominat Market share, that the FTC or someone had made them promise to licence any new technology to their competitors on some sort of Commercial basis.

"The 1954 Consent Decree concerned Kodak's practice of tying its photographic film and photofinishing services. Until the 1954 Decree, the sales price of Kodak color film included Kodak photofinishing. Since Kodak sold approximately 90 percent of the color film in the United States during that time, this practice allowed Kodak to maintain a 90-percent share of the photofinishing market as well. The government filed suit to stop this practice, and, prior to trial, Kodak and the government entered into the 1954 Decree. The decree principally required Kodak to make its color photofinishing technology available to competitors. Kodak fully complied with this requirement. The only provision of the 1954 Decree that remains operative today is Section V, which prevents Kodak from tying or otherwise connecting in any manner the sale of its color film to the processing thereof.

From http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html

The 1954 Consent Decree led to the formation of the Division (Photography Technology) I spent most of my Kodak time with. Photo Tech was set up to enable private photo processing labs process color film.

AgX · Sep 21, 2014

cmacd123 said:
I had heard that because of Kodak's Dominat Market share, that the FTC or someone had made them promise to licence any new technology to their competitors on some sort of Commercial basis. So that for example when 126 and 110 came out, the competition was able to release both film and cameras at the same time.

As far as I remember this is not true for both, type 126 and 11O.

Anyway, one has to differ between licensing the camera part (accepting the cartridge) and the cartridge itself (manufacturing the cartridge/film).

cmacd123 · Sep 22, 2014

I do recall the case as being Berkey Photo vs eastman Kodak, but that case seems to have resulted in the supreme court allowing Kodak to not be required to pre-disclose new film formats. If cose it is a bit mute as after 110, there was only disc and Kodak Instant film that came out from Kodak's own labs. APS while also a disaster, was developed in collaboration with other industry players.

I imagine that any new film formats will only be introduced in our dreams.

Nzoomed · Sep 27, 2014

This is well worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU7T8roVtC_3afWKTOGtLlBA&v=sAPqpoq0TRM#t=16

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency