Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

[ericdan]

I am not sure about that. Just some stuff I ran into online when I searched "Scotch Chrome".
I hope they will introduce a 400 speed slide film. That would mean I can stop buying provia 400x and don't need to invest in a new freezer to store more.

 

[Xmas]

How good is this film that they're trying to revive? ScotchChrome 100.
I've never shot it and the reviews I see online are not very positive. Especially for the 400 speed version people say it's super grainy.
Is this going to be anywhere close to the quality of slide film that Fujifilm is offering?

It (the 100) was ok in 2003-2005 when I tried it. I picked
Velvia rather than Kodak or Ferranni cause of process paid envelopes in UK
This was after Kchrome 25 was cancelled.
But colour is subjective eg I used single coated lenses.
and I did not do a large sample.
I tried the Agfa Vista last year but mini lab availability was too difficult web people tell me it is not Fuji and dung.
People keep telling me that Forma is dung when I've shot about 1000 rolls, cassettes and bulk with no problems web opine is silly.
The only problem with Ferranni is will they get funding.
The Kodak and Fuji groupies will be buying fridges instead.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Bit sad that Kodak didnt follow the same path, they could have even kept kodachrome going if they really wanted to. Dwaynes was taking care of all the processing and if the demand dropped that much, they could have implemented a smaller lab machine similar to a K-lab.

Can I see the business case for this?

 

[Nzoomed]

Can I see the business case for this?

Kodak dont think that any film has business sense, i dont see them producing C41 films for much longer.

If they genuinely were wanting to keep film as part of their business they would have been out there promoting everything, they should have gone retro, attract young people to film etc, maybe even producing a modern version of the box brownie for example.

Maybe kodachrome didnt have any business sense, but look at all the attention it got when they announced its end, rolls of the stuff streamed into Dwaynes. Even if the volume was low, there are many dedicated kodachrome shooters out there who would have been happy to shoot the stuff and send it back to Kodak/Dwaynes if they really had to, no matter what the price, it already would have been a niche product at the time, and kodak should have embraced that and promoted it.

No excuse for them dropping reversal film though, there are plenty who want to shoot that, i and many others have a nice stockpile of e100g and e100vs.

In the end, Kodak did not pay much attention to their film business, they should have moved with the times, and adapted to a shrinking film market. If Ferrania was the company that invented Kodachrome, i can guarantee that this would be one of their films they would intend on reproducing.

 

[AgX]

If they genuinely were wanting to keep film as part of their business they would have been out there promoting everything, they should have gone retro, attract young people to film etc, maybe even producing a modern version of the box brownie for example.

But then there will be people like me.
Who always complain about lacking marketing efforts and when something of this kind is done are complaining about storytelling.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Even if the volume was low, there are many dedicated kodachrome shooters out there who would have been happy to shoot the stuff and send it back to Kodak/Dwaynes if they really had to, no matter what the price

$260/roll? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If Ferrania was the company that invented Kodachrome, i can guarantee that this would be one of their films they would intend on reproducing.

So:
1. Make a right-sized K-process machine.
2. Make K-films. Sell K-films.
3. Spend lots of money on keeping the K-machine running while waiting for the market to pick up on K-film instead of E-6.

What if the market decides that, well, E-6 was superior to K-film in 2003*, it probably still is? And the K-process never turns a profit? That's a lot of money down the hazmat disposal that could've been spent on making films that have a market and an infrastructure.




* This was the general opinion amongst the few amateur photographers I hung out with in 2003, who pretty much all swore by Velvia. I'm not claiming it as fact or well-informed opinion, just opinion.

 

[Nzoomed]

$260/roll? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)



So:
1. Make a right-sized K-process machine.
2. Make K-films. Sell K-films.
3. Spend lots of money on keeping the K-machine running while waiting for the market to pick up on K-film instead of E-6.

What if the market decides that, well, E-6 was superior to K-film in 2003*, it probably still is? And the K-process never turns a profit? That's a lot of money down the hazmat disposal that could've been spent on making films that have a market and an infrastructure.




* This was the general opinion amongst the few amateur photographers I hung out with in 2003, who pretty much all swore by Velvia. I'm not claiming it as fact or well-informed opinion, just opinion.

Firstly $260 per roll was what Steve Frizza Offered to process it for, and this was done by hand in an experimental process which although he claims it worked and we got a photo posted here, we still dont know how reliable it was and how stable the dyes were etc, it still was unproven if photos would give the same kodachrome "red" so naturally people were cautious about paying him to process a roll.

Secondly, a small run of kodachrome would not be a big deal if they only had to do a production once a year to last 12 months supply.
If people were happy to pay a bit more per roll, (even as much as around $20-$30) i think alot of photographers would still buy it.
Processing, is it really a big deal to have a couple of small k-lab type machines running? These machines were designed to process small volumes of film at an economical rate. Even if it cost $50-$100 to process a roll, i would be happy to.
Such prices are far more than what Kodachrome cost to buy and develop in 2009, so i doubt such figures would be unprofitable.

As for hazmat disposal, no different than any other film, and kodak stated that that the chemicals used for processing Kodachrome are no more dangerous than any other C41 or E6 processing chemicals.

All im trying to say is i think that Kodak really could have kept Kodachrome going with a profit if they really wanted to.

Is E6 better? I dont think either are better than each other, they were simply different film options available to the consumer.
Kodachrome cant even be compared to E6 films, although the modern kodachrome was pretty close in colour to E100g i felt, it is the reds that are the main difference with kodachrome, it did have a slight vintage look, but the older original kodachrome looked more vintage than todays films, and i would love to see such films that could replicate that look.

In saying that i love E6 and am happy if that remains available for years to come. Sad to see my favourite kodak films gone, but we have ferrania to look forward to along with The AGFA/Rollei digibase CR200 (which appears to have the closest look to kodachrome)

 

[Roger Cole]

They could have kept Kodachrome going if the market wanted it. The market, in general, did not. Kodak couldn't even keep E6 going profitably and that was far more popular for many years than Kodachrome.

I liked Kodachrome. I shot several rolls (17 or so, forget exactly) during 2010 that I was able to buy up after the discontinuation was announced. But I was really using it ONLY because it had been discontinued and I wouldn't be able to later. I shot a few rolls of it in the 80s then moved to E6, because I could process E6 at home, because E6 came in speeds faster than 64 (K200 was out for a while and wasn't horrible but was quite grainy. 200 and even 400 speed E6 films beat the pants off it for grain, as well as for color accuracy if not the 'Kodachrome look'), because E6 color was more accurate across the color spectrum and didn't make Caucasian flesh tones shot with flash look like ghosts or, worse, occasionally cyan-ish ghosts.

And yes, I said I liked Kodachrome. It had a look that E6 never had, those stunning reds, and for some outdoor scenes in particular was very beautiful if not exactly accurate, and it was a great match for Ilfochrome/Cibachrome. But that didn't beat E6's more accurate overall palette, convenience of processing either at home or, during the heyday, many labs some of them in an hour or so, the faster speeds and so on.

Velvia with its over the top saturation drove the final nails in the coffin.

It was a great icon but it's gone and it isn't coming back though I too would love it. Give me the grain of the old K64 in a 200 speed with the look of Kodachrome only more accurate color (if that's even possible - I don't know to what extent 'the look' was BECAUSE of the inaccuracies) and I'll shoot a lot of it. But it isn't going to happen.

 

[Rudeofus]

Give me the grain of the old K64 in a 200 speed with the look of Kodachrome only more accurate color (if that's even possible - I don't know to what extent 'the look' was BECAUSE of the inaccuracies) and I'll shoot a lot of it. But it isn't going to happen.

The thinking at Kodak appears to be that you can have all this with Porta and some suitable print film, either contact printed or exposed through some laser head. Portra would give you all the fine grain, color accuracy and latitude you ask for. Note that this does not just reflect Kodak's current way of thinking about this, PE states pretty much "use negative film if you want accurate colors" all over the place.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yes he does, and I think he's right, but if you want transparencies it becomes a matter of which you prefer and though all may fall short of modern neg films, some are still more accurate than others.

 

[kraker]

I'd love to see things work out for Ferrania. Not only a new source of 35mm and 120 slide film, but also a new source for super-8 colour-reversal film, great news after Kodak has discontinued Ektachrome 100D in Super-8 format. All that is left now for colour-reversal super-8 is the special batches from wittner-cinetec. Would be great to see a (re)new(ed) player on the market. I've backed them, for sure, can't wait to try some of their super-8.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Am I correct that they just now went over $100,000 at only about the 20-hour mark?

Ken

 

[TheToadMen]

Am I correct that they just now went over $100,000 at only about the 20-hour mark?

Ken

Yes, they did. It's 2,089 backers just now, still 28 days to go ...

 

[abeku]

can't wait to try some of their super-8.

I'm in for the same reason. I've been waiting for a good excuse to use my super-8 camera and here it comes!

 

[MattKing]

If Kodak had designed an E6 emulsion to emulate the colour palette of K25, and promoted it as such, I wonder how popular it might have been?

I wonder what Ferrania will be using as their colour palette "target"?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sometimes palette is dictated by availability of chemicals (sensitizing dye and coupler both) and image stability (heat, humidity and light). So you sometimes have to compromises.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Am I correct that they just now went over $100,000 at only about the 20-hour mark?

Ken

Yes it appears so! Ive been watching things very closley and i was expecting this to happen, yesterday morning it was at $20,000 and it was rising before my eyes, at this rate they will have raised over $1 Million in ten days!

The more they raise the better i guess, as they need the money for the new building and this means less money required from their govt to get set up.

I wonder how long it will be before this equipment is modified and installed in the new facility? I suspect its going to be built on the old site of the big boy building?

Its also unclear to me if they are demolishing the acetate and photochemical plant buildings, or if they will purchase the whole buildings and use them as is. It seems uneconomical to demolish them if they are necessary to film production, obviously with the big boy building thats understandable, and this is the only building they have mentioned will be demolished.

But what confuses me more, is that on the film ferrania website, it shows a photo inside the big boy building and claims its empty and awaiting destruction, if so, why are they claiming the coating machinery is still inside?

 

[cmacd123]

The european TAC base casters look all the same and are smaller than the Kodak ones, due to a different casting principle.
But still nothing you want to move. It is not just the caster itself but also the base making and solvent handling.

We know Kodak's method is to evaporate solvent on a large polished drum, how do they do it in europe?

 

[AgX]

Basically the same but not on a huge massive wheel, but on endless metall foil running as a strip in horizontal direction. Thus giving the caster a different outlook.

 

[cmacd123]

I was thiking last night, perhaps the WIDTH is not the problem. The giant building is for drying the fresh film. presumably this takes some relativly fixed amount of time. Multiply that time by the spped of the coater and you get the amount of film stock that gets wasted (X2) just to thread then machine.

So Ron, is it possible to run the coater Much more slowly? if it ran at half speed, the film would be dry half way through the football field sized building, at 1/4 speed in 25 yards of rollers.

The research coater they they showed in the earlyer video seemed to only have a drying section about 40 feet long and 8 feet high. If they were to run the big coater as slow as the small coater could they not build a drying room 200 by 20 feet by the width of the rolls (and access) and make shorter batches of film the full width? Those could be slit on the slitter that Ferania used for production in the past.

How slow can you run the coater before it becomes hard to get an even coating?

 

[AgX]

Coating speed is related to the principle of coating employed as well to the emulsion used. You are not free in chosing speed.

 

[cmacd123]

If they genuinely were wanting to keep film as part of their business they would have been out there promoting everything, they should have gone retro, attract young people to film etc, maybe even producing a modern version of the box brownie for example.

My facebook feed today did have a story from Kodak Professional (alaris) with a link about another university film program setting up new darkrooms. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...2014/09/30/aum-photo-lab-focus-film/16486611/ so the new guys are trying to promote film use.

 

[Nzoomed]

My facebook feed today did have a story from Kodak Professional (alaris) with a link about another university film program setting up new darkrooms. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...2014/09/30/aum-photo-lab-focus-film/16486611/ so the new guys are trying to promote film use.

Well thats good to hear, perhaps a bit late now, but at least they are trying.

 

[AgX]

Great news: a new darkroom for an arts department. Over here I only hear about reductions at such academies.

 

[cmacd123]

You are not free in chosing speed.

But can they cheat? the research coater they showed in the video did not have a football field sized dryer, yet it somehow allowed 3M to test work for the big machine. Did it have more airflow, more heat? or could the slots be narrower and the film moving more slowly. I know film only as a user, but just trying to figure out what the difference between the two machines is and how they can fake the big machine into making economical batches without having to have monster buildings.