Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
Suspect that reliable small scale processing of super8 and 16mm film stocks would be a good way forward. CatLABS have posted about a prototype Jobo insert for rotary processing of super8 film, which seems like a good idea.

Tom

I agree, i think that we need more labs that can offer such services.
Im hoping that Film Ferrania will start their own E6 lab for super8 and 16mm processing.

Anyway, ive done some calculations, and it turns out that the area of film required to make one 50 foot roll of super 8 film is almost that of 2 rolls of 36 exp 35mm film (45 feet) so ive been wondering why the price of super8 film has been so expensive?
Perhaps its more expensive due to the cartridges its packed in? IDK. Or else is it the way that its cut off the master roll?
Do they have wastage perhaps with cutting super 8 off the master rolls?

Im hoping they can make it affordable as possible for the consumer, while them still making profit, its become prohibitively expensive for me to shoot it. Ektachrome 100D cost me almost $50 (NZD) per roll and then i had to pay two lots of international shipping on top of processing! So it works out to be close to $150 for 5mins footage.

If Ferrania can set up their own processing lab and offer prepaid film processing, that would be great, there could be some cost savings involved for them as they could reuse the plastic super8 cartridges etc.

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

cmacd123 said:
of course, I am trying to wrap my feble brain arround the process to understand it better.

I was not Thinking about changing the temperature. the film coater in my minds eye has dry air at a specified temperature which is probably close to 20C And in fact is exactly the temperature and RH the lads at IMATION last used when they made the last batch of Scotch Chrome.

What I was thinking was that lets say some formula is known to take 20 minutes to dry at 20C and 20% RH. if you coat it at 1000 feet a minute, you would need to have a drying chamber that holds 20,000 ft of film before you roll it up. If to go to the other extreme so you could coat it at only 10 feet a minute. the wet stage would be dry in 200 feet, and you could probably skip 99% of the drying rollers.

But But BUT, if someone from Alaris called you up tomorrow and gave you a contract to design a new film, BUT it had to be made like all Kodak film in Building 38. Would not the maximum (and Minimum) length of the dryer be fixed in that they are not going to let you add on to the building. My feeble mind is guessing the coating speed maximum is going to have a limit in that the film has to be dry by the time it gets rolls up.

Just like if they wanted to make a batch on the existing "Big Boy" in sunny Italy, they would have to be sure it would dry in the sideways football field building they show in the video. using an old IMATION formula that calculation would presumably already be done.

Read post 842 above!

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Lachlan Young said:
What are the advantages to coating a 12 layer film as a 3x4 layer coating rather than a single 12 layer pass?

In R&D I can examine the response of segments of film and also look at the whole package. Thus, if there are errors in my experiment, I can tell where they are and what they are.

PE

Lachlan Young · Oct 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
In R&D I can examine the response of segments of film and also look at the whole package. Thus, if there are errors in my experiment, I can tell where they are and what they are.

PE

Makes sense. Therefore, given that the Ferrania coater in the LRF building can only coat up to 8 layers as it stands, adding a second coating head would seem to be a sensible decision in terms of long term flexibility. The Ilford/ Harman machine can do 5 layers and the Innoviscoat one 9 or 10 I think.

PE, one other question: are the main differences between a paper and film coater usually down to number/ size of coating heads & the size/ type of drying system or are there other major aspects that differ as well (substrate handling etc)? I started a thread on this over in the emulsion making section, but it seems not to have attracted any response.

Cheers,

Lachlan

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Lachlan, sorry I missed that one.

Yes, the coaters are (were) totally different, but more due to tradition IMHO and according to several others as well. Film was coated on a vertical web and paper was coated on a horizontal web. R&D machines could do either. Also, paper machines were designed with different tensioning due to the fragility of paper and different filtration due to paper dust.

Why are you interested? Are you going to build one or the other? Or are you coming out to the barn to check my work so far?

PE

pdeeh · Oct 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
coaters are (were) totally different, but more due to tradition IMHO

I think Harman coat film and paper using the same machine(s) ?

Or perhaps I have misremembered or misunderstood something

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

IDK offhand, but the dust from high speed paper (FB and RC) is amazing.

Even with closed cabinets the room and machine need good cleaning before film can be coated in the same room.

PE

pdeeh · Oct 3, 2014

With a bit of luck someone who's been on the Harman tour is reading and can chime in (as I expect Simon has buggered off the weekend, not that I blame him of course ...)

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 3, 2014

Xmas said:
If Ilford have not done colour (or cine or 220) for decade(s) why are Ferranni trying to restart - there is no E6 market they should have tried C41 first or mono.

There are too few E6 labs left. There are not that many C41 labs left. Impossible does not need labs. It was the C41 labs that killed Polariod.

What % of the mono market is reversal?

This is parochial thinking at its worst.

Ferrania have publicly stated that not only is their first product to be an ISO100 E-6 film, they also hope to follow that up within the first year of production with both a second ISO400 E-6 and a third ISO800-3200 E-6 films. This is undoubtedly a multimillion USD/GBP/EUR operation. And an incredibly difficult undertaking.

Why would they knowingly go down such a road if there was no market for E-6? Do you know something they don't? Or might there still be a right-sized market out there? One that is too small for Kodak and Fujifilm? But which might still be viable for them to service? In which case they would know something you don't...

Ken

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Ken, "multimillion" is the key word in your post. They have to recoup this somehow. And doing it in E6 is going to be marginal at best.

PE

pentaxuser · Oct 3, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
Why would they knowingly go down such a road if there was no market for E-6? Do you know something they don't?
Ken

I assume that they haven't told us yet. I might have missed it of course but it would seem, Ken, that we haven't been told otherwise I'd assume you'd have summarised Ferrania's reasons for us.Companies usually say why they believe that a new product launch will be profitable. Maybe they have said so but I haven't seen anything. Anyone know what Ferrania has actually said about the commercial reasons for an E-6 launch.

I am assuming in all of this that it has to be profitable in at least the medium term and that Ferrania cannot rely on governmental support to largely finance the on-going production of E-6.

pentaxuser

Arctic amateur · Oct 3, 2014

IIRC the whole FF project started with cine film. Neither Fuji nor Kodak offer super-8 or 16mm colour reversal film any more. The only product on the market is the Agfa Aviphot film.

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
This is parochial thinking at its worst.

Ferrania have publicly stated that not only is their first product to be an ISO100 E-6 film, they also hope to follow that up within the first year of production with both a second ISO400 E-6 and a third ISO800-3200 E-6 films. This is undoubtedly a multimillion USD/GBP/EUR operation. And an incredibly difficult undertaking.

Why would they knowingly go down such a road if there was no market for E-6? Do you know something they don't? Or might there still be a right-sized market out there? One that is too small for Kodak and Fujifilm? But which might still be viable for them to service? In which case they would know something you don't...

Ken

I agree, i think its a very wise choice for them to heavily invest in E6, obviously they can see there is a high demand for the stuff and extremley short supply at present with only Fuji and Agfa options available.
Interesting to learn that they plan to introduce higher speed films in the first year! I havnt read that statement anywhere on their website, is this a new announcement?

All i know is i hope Kodak and Fuji watch them closely, if the 2 companies feel that there is still demand for film, they may rethink things, if Ferrania are able to adjust their production machinery for a smaller market, i dont see why kodak shouldnt be able to make the same modifications to their equipment, i know they have re-tooled their equipment, but it appears its not enough. Ferrania want do do similar mods to "Big Boy" but i expect they will make even bigger improvements than Kodak has.

Interesting to read that Kodak claim that its not easy to downscale production (for E6 Ektachrome anyway) they say that you "cant simply just mix a smaller batch of chemicals - it doesnt work this way". Well film Ferrania are proving that they can still do a small run of scotch chrome that originally would have been mass produced on big boy, why cant kodak do the same? They would have had to when making test batches i would have thought anyway?

If kodak fail in todays market, Film Ferrania will be the #1 global film manufacturer, which is quite ironic, because this was a brand that i had totally forgotten about and thought it had died a long time ago. Ferrania/Scotch/Imation/3M film was not widely available here in New Zealand in their later years, but i see that they had their own super8 lab here for processing the stuff back in the 60's/70's! Ive found old family photos that were taken on ferrania film or printed on ferrania paper, so it was a big brand back in the day and i cant see anything to put me off using it as far as image quality goes.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Ken, "multimillion" is the key word in your post. They have to recoup this somehow. And doing it in E6 is going to be marginal at best.

Understood.

But if we here with no film-making knowledge (and you with a hell of a lot more film-making knowledge) already know that, then why wouldn't they know it as well? Presumably they are not amateurs in this business. Nor are the investors and bankers they must inevitably be dealing with. No viable business plan, no spendable money.

Besides, by all accounts thus far they don't plan on stopping with E-6. Perhaps their plans to recoup are longer term. Perhaps they see the ability to recoup as deriving from C-41 down the road, after Kodak ceases C-41 production. Perhaps they even hope to become the single source for MP archiving film. Or eventually a supplier of film base for Harman and anyone else still interested? And maybe E-6 is just the camel's toe in the tent for them. Who knows?

This is all rank unsupported speculation, of course. But speculative thinking is the exact opposite of parochial thinking. And while nothing is ever guaranteed, obviously they think they see something, else why bother?

I'd be truly shocked and surprised if they honestly considered a modest reintroduction of E-6 film to be their final goal. And attempting to save some or all of the coating machinery from the mainline plant just for a little bit of Super 8 reversal for a few amateurs? I really don't think so. But then again, who knows?

Ken

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Kodak laid off about 70 people today due to declines in the market (unspecified) and the need to realign people. I would love to realign a few of those managers from earlier years.

PE

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

Arctic amateur said:
IIRC the whole FF project started with cine film. Neither Fuji nor Kodak offer super-8 or 16mm colour reversal film any more. The only product on the market is the Agfa Aviphot film.

Agfa dont product it in super8 or 16mm either, Wittner-Cinetec and Pro8mm are the only two companies that im aware of that are purchasing the stock as bulk rolls from Fuji and Agfa and are then cutting, perforating and spooling it down in these formats along with 35mm.

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak laid off about 70 people today due to declines in the market (unspecified) and the need to realign people. I would love to realign a few of those managers from earlier years.

PE

You should march back through their doors and tell them you want to be their new CEO!
Kodak need more people like you!

pdeeh · Oct 3, 2014

Nzoomed said:
If kodak fail in todays market, Film Ferrania will be the #1 global film manufacturer,

It's very hard to see how the latter follows from the former.

FF haven't even started manufacturing yet.

Ilford and Foma have much larger production now than FF will have even when they get going ... let alone Fuji, who despite their retrenchment still produce vast volumes of film.

kb3lms · Oct 3, 2014

Yes, listening to the FPP podcast, the original reason was to purchase some film slitting and finishing equipment for MP film. Then they realized that they had a mothballed factory to work with and most of the knowledge available. IDK where they were going to get film before they decided to make their own.

The primary reason for right sizing a production facility is because there wasn't any Reversal MP film left.

A few years back I had said that someone would figure out how to make the numbers work and do something like FF is doing. I also said it would be in Europe where businesses will venture into the niche market because they want to be in the business and not the US where it is sell billions or don't bother. (Aka Kodak ) People here said I was an idiot but in fact here it is. (I still might be an idiot thought LOL ). If they run their venture right, they will be profitable.

Based on my vast knowledge of nothing but gut feel, I think the analog to digital conversion is over. People know what camp they are in and some will move back and forth. The pendulum is starting to settle down. Kodak may continue to moan and implode but FF is probably getting into this venture at the right time.

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Nah, I need Dr. Who! Oh, and a shipload of sympathetic Daleks.

Dr Croubie · Oct 3, 2014

I'm not sure if someone's written this theory already, but here's my take.

Why is the first run in E6? Occam suggests that E6 is the one that's most advanced in terms of the 'reengineering' that they have to do?
They said it themselves that they have to rescue Big Boy et al by the end of the year (I'm taking everything they've written at face-value, btw), and they need the cash now. Ergo they also need to offer rewards now.
It could have been a choice between offering a few rolls of Scotchchrome in April, or C41 but maybe not until August next year or something?
Offering ECN (if indeed they can and plan to) wouldn't have impressed the stills shooters and they wouldn't have had $173k in 3 days.

As for their plans for 400 and 800, well I haven't read them but I won't doubt if anyone says they have. That could just be marketing blurb vapourware. Or maybe they fully intend to do this.
Home-Cine shooters (and I can't remember, my parents last used their 8mm when I was 7 years old) might be better served by E6 than ECN, no duping needed to project it.

I'm not sure what their target market is, but if they're offering 8mm and 16mm E6, that's more on the amateur side than the big budget 35mm and even 65/70mm shooters.
So maybe they intend to target the small amateurs (first), to get some small cash rolling in to fund more ECN research, and once Kodak's 35mm Vision is dead then Ferrania can team up with Tarantino in a big PR stunt and 'save' film (now I'm getting cynical).

Photo Engineer · Oct 3, 2014

Someone earlier asked why cine 8 and 16 are so expensive compared to some other films.

Here is one reason - waste. You see, the smaller the film size, the larger the waste from sprocket holes in comparison to footage and therefore cost goes up. Of course the cartridge for super 8 is expensive and that is a good part of the cost increase, but never forget the waste from the sprocket holes.

PE

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

pdeeh said:
It's very hard to see how the latter follows from the former.

FF haven't even started manufacturing yet.

Ilford and Foma have much larger production now than FF will have even when they get going ... let alone Fuji, who despite their retrenchment still produce vast volumes of film.

Problem is Ilford does not make colour films, secondly, how committed is Fuji to making film? Do they plan on adjusting their production line for making smaller batches of film, or will they abandon it completley? Their market has shrunk somewhat and they have dropped a few products, i can see Fuji being around for longer than Kodak, but Film Ferrania is the only film company (with the exception of Ilford and foma that do B&W) that is committed to keeping film alive in as many formats as possible, of course they are only getting started, but im talking about where we will be 5 years from now...

Nzoomed · Oct 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Someone earlier asked why cine 8 and 16 are so expensive compared to some other films.

Here is one reason - waste. You see, the smaller the film size, the larger the waste from sprocket holes in comparison to footage and therefore cost goes up. Of course the cartridge for super 8 is expensive and that is a good part of the cost increase, but never forget the waste from the sprocket holes.

PE

How does the sprocket holes affect price? All film has them, 35mm has even larger ones.
I thought the price would be affected by the total area of the film itself? As i said, the square area of a roll of super8 film is almost that of two 36 exposure rolls of film (almost 45 feet) and a roll of super8 is 50 feet.
So if my calculations are correct, the price of a 100 foot roll of 16mm film should cost 4 times the price of a 50 foot roll of super 8, (not taking into consideration the price of the spool or cartridge)

pdeeh · Oct 3, 2014

this reminds me of the sort of discussions that happen when new cameras are announced or even just rumoured ... amazing speculation and projection about what is assumed the impact will be and how it will perform and what it will cost ... based on nothing more than willed belief.

We've gone from an announcement that a small startup in Italy will make some small runs of film on a test facility (but would like some money to make bigger runs in a bigger facility) to the same small startup totally dominating world film production ... all with hardly a breath taken ...

I feel as well disposed towards FF's efforts as anyone, but for goodness' sake let's get some perspective here!

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency