Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

[cmacd123]

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

actually it is of interest, another interview with David Blas, this time by the "art of Photography Blog folks.

well over an hour long, and t was done as a live stream so it gets repetitive in spots. Also Mr. Bias comes across as knowing more about marketing than making film. or perhaps he is being evasise, but there are several lines where I am not sure what he means.

One poiunt he touches on is one I was wondering - they are apparently looking to beef up the capacity of that research coating machine. I was really wondering about that as when you see the "Big Machines" they have ways of changing rolls on the fly, while the previous pictures they showed seem to not have that sort of provision. I suspect that most jobs run on a research coater might only be a couple of hundred feet of film, as some tests they probably only want to run some curves, and maybe send ONE 36 exp roll to the studio to see what the skin tones look like. While even a scaled down run of film for sale might need several thousand feet - particularly when the machine in the previous pictures only seemed to be in the 15 to 20 inch wide category.

Next cliffhanger is that they are NOT ready to say what there SECOND planned film stock is.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Our research coater could coat 1000 ft rolls which were 11" wide (emulsion coated width) and could change on the fly. In fact, once when I was inside the tensioner box (rather large), the splice broke and dropped a rather large weight behind me scaring me silly. Anyhow, it can be done and it isn't that hard.

PE

 

[cmacd123]

Anyhow, it can be done and it isn't that hard.
PE

I am sure it can, all I was saying is from the photos they have published, it did not look like there was a facility (that my unschooled mind could parse) to do that, and I was wondering if they could make a reasonable volume if they were say trying to sell 16mm/400ft rolls.

I I completely out in left field as to the quantity that a test batch might entail? how much film would be needed to characterize a test batch as opposed to a Prototype batch?

 

[AgX]

Even without an automated roll-exchanger one could coat several rolls spliced together. I depends on the machine set-up whether one has to stop coating for this or can coat continuously at same speed.

 

[Xmas]

I am sure it can, all I was saying is from the photos they have published, it did not look like there was a facility (that my unschooled mind could parse) to do that, and I was wondering if they could make a reasonable volume if they were say trying to sell 16mm/400ft rolls.

I I completely out in left field as to the quantity that a test batch might entail? how much film would be needed to characterize a test batch as opposed to a Prototype batch?

It is not clear what the difference between a test coat and a prototype coat might be in your mind?

But if their market is cine they would do well to make up lots of 100 and 400 foot lengths and shoot them in different camera types. And project the film four hours on end cause...

They put Hubble into orbit before they looked through it?

The CIA then confessed they had made similar mistakes with theirs.

tusk tusk smiley

Stills film needs different tests. 24 hour cycle in Carousel projector would not seem admiss.

I've had cine film snap in my bulk loader it would have had more stress in a cine camera or projector.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

 

[Photo Engineer]

You could not really test the Hubble fully on the ground IIRC, due to some technical problems associated with the tests.

But, for film a test coat might be coated at slow speed to look at imperfections or other problems. Part might be run in the light and part in the dark for different tests. A prototype is run under manufacturing conditions and is tested that way.

Assume an 11" sheet of film for the coater. 10" might be coated with 1" used as selvedge at the edges where the undercut rollers turn the film. Therefore, you get 10" x 1000 ft of good film on an experimental coater (BTDT before there is any argument about this). All of this film can be slit and chopped as desired for testing. We used 12" x 35mm or 4x5 for all of these, but the prototype was normally made into 35mm casetttes for real tests or handouts to editors or big time customers.

PE

 

[Xmas]

You could not really test the Hubble fully on the ground IIRC, due to some technical problems associated with the tests.

But, for film a test coat might be coated at slow speed to look at imperfections or other problems. Part might be run in the light and part in the dark for different tests. A prototype is run under manufacturing conditions and is tested that way.

Assume an 11" sheet of film for the coater. 10" might be coated with 1" used as selvedge at the edges where the undercut rollers turn the film. Therefore, you get 10" x 1000 ft of good film on an experimental coater (BTDT before there is any argument about this). All of this film can be slit and chopped as desired for testing. We used 12" x 35mm or 4x5 for all of these, but the prototype was normally made into 35mm casetttes for real tests or handouts to editors or big time customers.

PE

you sure about that?

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw44.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was careful to add "IIRC" as I could not remember the full details. My memory was probably referring me to the use of the Kodak mirror or something else. Besides, that was a minor footnote to my post about testing coatings.

Sorry, and thanks for the correction.

PE

 

[georg16nik]

Just got this in my mailbox Dead Link Removed

...This project will only be funded if at least $250,000 is pledged by Wed, Oct 29 2014 7:59 PM EEST....

 

[AgX]

Big News:

So they actually want to leave their current premises and revive the whole Ferrania film plant.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Wow. That shines a WHOLE lot more light onto the scope of their goals. It sounds to me as if they are now thinking much bigger than their initial "let's just keep amateur cine film alive" wish.

I might speculate that things in the film manufacturing universe changed dramatically between that first goal and now. Seems like everyone in the world is now looking to Film Ferrania as possibly the last chance to save color film.

So their scope kept enlarging with all of our expectations, but their timeframe to save the suddenly necessary additional factory machinery did not? And maybe this KS project is the result?

I'll definitely support it...

[Edit: OK, I'm now in at the $70 reward level, but for $100 for better karma.]

Ken

 

[Analog Swede]

I've pledged $70

 

[sjauch]

Just put $70 towards this. I'm all for helping to keep film production going.

 

[kb3lms]

I'm in.

 

[Trond]

Me too! This is important.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Big News:

So they actually want to leave their current premises and revive the whole Ferrania film plant.

Yes, it is great news.
I'm not sure if it is just the machine or if it is the entire building.
But, if it is just the machine, where would it fit?

 

[cmacd123]

The may be reading this thread here. They now want to save the CTA film base machinery, which Robert seabrook has previously described as a monster to keep running. Perhaps they are not happy with buying film base form outside like Ilford has been doing. They also want to to save the Full on Chemical synthesis factory, AND the industrial sized coater. Which several here have wondered if the research coater is capable of producing consistent colour film.

One thing that I wonder is the "numbered limited edition" of the rewards film prizes, are we supposed to just cherish these collectables or are they actually going to be useable film?

 

[abeku]

I'm in too!

 

[AgX]

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.

The same for the emulsion coaters. And you still got emulsion making. Again nothing you want to move. But such has been done.

 

[awalker]

Just participated Ferrania kickstarter (Dead Link Removed) with a some dollars hope they make their coal!!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just participated Ferrania kickstarter (Dead Link Removed) with a some dollars hope they make their coal!!

They're making coal? I thought they were making film.

 

[Simonh82]

I've backed it just because it has to be a good thing to do. I hope the film is good but I won't complain it the QC isn't 100% on the first batch.

The way I interpreted the video is that they will be using the research coater for the production but will combine it with some element of the big boy machinery to make it more economical. I'm not sure how this works in practice as every thing I've heard suggests moving this type of equipment is fraught with difficulty. Still they also said they knew that the current market couldn't support using the big boy plant.

Perhaps they can start production on one site and finish it on another?

I suspect this kickstarter is probably more marketing than necessity. I cannot believe that $250,000 would go anywhere near the purchasing of this equipment in reality, even if it is just the scrap value. The value of the land to the owners would also be way more.

I suspect the kickstarter is about engaging the film community, creating a following of people who feel invested in the product and then getting the product into people's hands so we can hopefully give some good reviews. And fair play to them for it. If that is what it takes to rescue the factory and continue film production then I'm very happy to support it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Good points...

Perhaps it's also a way to demonstrate market interest to other outside sources of potentially larger investment capital? I note that the reward level tiers are pretty small scale, with the highest tier being only $220 and the sweet spot at only $70. Ideal for pushing up the supporter count?

I agree that $250,000 is not a particularly large sum in their context. Perhaps it's designed more to be just a reachable goal?

However, I think this is still worth supporting. We may not get too many more chances for a Color Ilford type of resolution.

Ken

 

[Nzoomed]

Yes i got the email this morning too, very interesting read, but it does go against alot of things that they said earlier about the LRF buildings research coater being adequate to produce film, i thought they said that this coater was the only economical means to produce small runs of film without wastage etc.

But on the other hand, this answers alot of my questions about them building the new factory.
I know that some of these buildings are set for demolition, so they want to save the equipment before this happens, i expect the new factory will be built on the old site.

I also thought others mentioned here that alot of their old coaters had been scrapped, obviously not, its only good news anyway, as these people could very well be the only people left still producing colour film. If that was the case, they probably would need the same capacity as kodak has to meet supply and demand, especially if kodak and fuji stop production.

 

[trythis]

I threw in some cash but I have a hard time believing the cost of moving the equipment is under a few million. Maybe its enough to get the special components that aren't scale dependent leaving the rest for scrap. I imagine that rollers are useful, but the 9 story space between the top and bottom is just a light tight box of warm air. The roller supports would be the wrong size anyway for a scaled down unit.