Forty hail Mary's
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!
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!
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!
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
And thats understandable, they can keep the coater running from the parts of Big Boy and use the LRF to produce or test new upcoming emulsions.
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!
Nope, I think you got it wrong. As far as I can see, and according to the interviews from Dave and what Marco said, they want to take parts of the big coater and "beef up" the small coater at the LRF. That is only one machine.
The thing is the small coater as it stands now can only produce 400,000 rolls a year at a high cost. They want to produce more at a lower cost. Obviously not the 329 million rolls of 35mm that Big Boy can do a year.
Lets remind that the people now working at Ferrania are a small group of only 6 or 7 people. They are engineers, lab technicians, photographers and directors. They aren't accountants and there isn't a CEO or a Board of Directors. But they do have something that only a few companies in the film business have: passion for film.
What is actually going on here is new-world film marketing.
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.
I'll take it from this short set of posts since mine that no-one so far has seen any economic argument for the E-6 launch.
building a new factory
Its still unclear about the buildings for the cellulose acetate lab and the chemical lab, are these set for demolition, or can they simply just take over the buildings and use them as is? Doesnt make much economic sense to demolish the buildings and build new ones, when they have the infrastructure already in place.
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)
As I said before...
Geez you really don't get it.
Sprocket holes are waste and as the format size goes down, the percentage (area) of film that is sprocket hole goes up! Therefore waste goes up as format size goes down. This increases cost!
And if anyone answered this after this post, sorry, but I just went ahead and nearly popped a gasket!
PE
I'll take it from this short set of posts since mine that no-one so far has seen any economic argument for the E-6 launch.
It would seem that Ferrania is ambitious or maybe aspirational is the better word in its projected range of future products and equally doesn't have to prepare the kind of case that companies have to when it seeks fresh funds from the hard-headed financial markets
However I'd be more convinced of its viability if there were just a few more economic facts. I'll just have to watch developments, I suppose.
In all cases like this where a new company is launching new products for which other manufacturers apparently see a much gloomier future, we all have to hope that we are not simply being told what the launch company wants us to hear and that we are not filling the "empty spaces" left by the lack of good business arguments with our own "faith that will keep the diesels humming" to borrow from the "People Get Ready" song
pentaxuser
Yes I can understand that from that aspect, your right, the sprocket holes do take more percentage of film space away with the narrower the width, but im talking about what a price of film should cost as far as square area goes, and this should not affect sale price if film is sold by the square area.
Although it should be noted that its actually alot cheaper to use super8 film over 16mm or 35mm, because the amount of film per minute of footage drops significantly with each gauge of film, as each frame is alot smaller, in this case the payoff is with image quality, and this is where your coming from with the perforations, since super8 has smaller ones, you get a slightly bigger frame over regular 8mm.
A wonderful thing about the internet is that anyone can post an uninformed opinion... here is mine
I wonder if E6 as the first offering may have something to do with the original idea relating to cinefilm. Perhaps everything beyond that was just taking advantage of an opportunity.
Of course, there might be practical factors I'm unaware of, such as which formula they have is the most recent technology (thus more competitive than other options), or something to do with materials at hand, or perhaps (as mentioned by someone else) that if they can do E6, the rest may be easier. Maybe because, despite its waning, E6 may also be the most under-served market and have the best chance for establishing a foot-hold.
While we would all like Kodak to be able to downsize to continue film production, it will not be easy, especially when they have other reasons to struggle. If they can't, there will be a large market, and it's better to be ready to step in rather than waiting to start - though this is an huge gamble.
Conversely, Ferrania was basically a derelict factory. Surely it is a big investment, but there are no other products or side-projects to be affected. Creating a "right-sized" company may be less risky than "right-sizing" an existing company.
Square area though is costed out minus waste which in this case are the sprocket holes. I might add that they are also costed out with the waste produced by the thin strip of film between each strip of 8mm or whatever being produced. This fraction is also included in the cost and since it is a constant width, the cost of this additional waste causes the film price to go up.
To explain more fully, a web of film is |selvedge|tiny waste area|product|tiny wast area|product.......etc. As width goes down, tiny waste area is more or less constant and thus waste goes up.
PE
Nah, I need Dr. Who! Oh, and a shipload of sympathetic Daleks.
Sound familiar?
That's why I always believed that Kodak was in the industrial films and coatings business, not the "imaging" business. That's where they made their mistake.
They could have done wondrous things if they stuck with coatings. Like PV solar cells, new batteries from rolled films. Even auto coatings that wrapped on and set with heat-shrink or uv light and could even change color with weather, darkness or even a user adjusted controller. Do things no one else could do or even think about doing.
How about inviting some friendly Klingons singing a lovely song to make an impression?
Klingons are very good in realigning people too ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?