Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

railwayman3 · May 16, 2017

Brady Eklund said:
One thing to point out is that the delays on shipping the Alpha product are largely about the scale of their current production lines and the sudden influx of demand that came in when they opened orders. Normal demand for an ongoing business could likely be met by this relatively low production volume, but they had to deal with a huge swell of demand all at once. My concern is that they will continue to encounter these situations as they release further products and wear out the good will of their consumers. Maybe when they release the Alpha version of their slide film they'll have the sense to wait until they have some inventory built up to decrease the time between order and delivery for their customers. If they keep us updated on testing and production before making pre-ordering available I don't think they'll suffer from delaying the initial release. As sexy as the P30 test shots were, the color slide test shots will be even sexier, even if they have problems with balancing the color just right (look at what people are paying Lomography for their purple and turquoise films).

Yes, but people deliberately buy the purple and turquoise, and other, films, from Lomography, knowing that they are going to get querky and way-out results. There is surely a big difference between that and buying a conventional slide film only to find that the colors are not balanced properly. If one of us bought a fresh Fuji slide film, or one of the new Ektachromes (if and when they appear), and found unbalanced colors, I think we'd be quite justified in posting complaints.

wlodekmj · May 16, 2017

Ricardo Miranda said:
Thanks!
Mine is 904xx made on the 15th March at 16:02 (UK).

Thanks too! Let's collect a few more numbers!
Mine is 904xx too, time-stamped by Ferrania at 16:15 on 15 March. I too am in the United Kingdom and have not yet received my order.
I actually placed my order at about 22:00, when the system was working again, and I had understood how to get a card number into it.
It looks like they started counting at or about 90001, since no-one has given a number starting below that.
Does anyone have a lower number? Did orders placed with the American site begin with a different digit?
They said that "backers with coupon codes will be moved to the front of the queue when orders are ready to ship", which might explain why I was given a time earlier than I had placed my order. Did other people who supported them via Kickstarter see the same?
The 20 000 early visits that crashed the site were due in part to people not getting through and therefore starting up multiple sessions. So, how many orders might there really be? If 1 in 4 of those visits finally ended up in an order, we should see order numbers between 90xxx and 94xxx.
Looking forward to more order numbers being posted.

Meyer Trioplan · May 16, 2017

9095x order number. US Customer, KS backer. No film shipped or charged yet.

856pm order time on 3/15.

Brady Eklund · May 17, 2017

Order Number: 905xx
Date: March 15, 2017, 5:07 pm

Nothing yet

Brady Eklund · May 17, 2017

railwayman3 said:
Yes, but people deliberately buy the purple and turquoise, and other, films, from Lomography, knowing that they are going to get querky and way-out results. There is surely a big difference between that and buying a conventional slide film only to find that the colors are not balanced properly. If one of us bought a fresh Fuji slide film, or one of the new Ektachromes (if and when they appear), and found unbalanced colors, I think we'd be quite justified in posting complaints.

I'm talking about the alpha version of the slide film, which is likely to be a little less finished than the P30 alpha. The complaints would be justified and needed to help develop the final product.

sr44 · May 17, 2017

Order number: 908xx
Date: March 15, 7:59pm

US customer, nothing yet here either.

bvy · May 17, 2017

Order 90500, March 15, 5:36PM Eastern time.

railwayman3 · May 18, 2017

Brady Eklund said:
I'm talking about the alpha version of the slide film, which is likely to be a little less finished than the P30 alpha. The complaints would be justified and needed to help develop the final product.

I do understand what you're saying, and not wanting to be deliberately awkward, but are Ferrania going to expect us to do the testing on their behalf, by buying the film, giving time and expense to shooting specially (because we're not going to feel safe in using an Alpha product for our daughter's wedding ), then paying for processing ? That's a bit different from the novelty of trying out P30 and experimenting with the results (and P30 does appear to be another good, alternative choice to add to the range of available B&W films)....E6 is either "right" or "wrong"?
I do hope Ferrania will succeed, but I'm starting to think that their future ought to be in specialist films, unusual sizes, etc., rather than an E6 product which might be seen just as a cheap-and-cheerful alternative to Fuji (and, hopefully, Kodak).

flavio81 · May 18, 2017

railwayman3 said:
but I'm starting to think that their future ought to be in specialist films, unusual sizes, etc., rather than an E6 product which might be seen just as a cheap-and-cheerful alternative to Fuji (and, hopefully, Kodak).

Kodak has nothing yet.
Fuji is the only E6 manufacturer left and it charges whichever high prices they want for their films.
Extremely high prices.
I, who in the past was a longtime Fuji fan, sometimes feel insulted by how the prices go up and up every year, with no clear indication of Fuji wanting to have a long-term commitment to E6.

"AgfaPhoto" is repackaged Fuji at lower prices, we don't know how long we'll benefit from it.
The only other thing left is the Agfa 200-speed "Aviphot Chrome", repackaged by other manufacturers with results which vary from "pleasing soft colors, grain a little big", to "horrible yellowed slides with big grain".

Today, 2017, an inexpensive E6 film is something unusual. There is no alternative today!
Not to mention a 400, 800 or 1000-speed E6 film. That would be a specialist film.
Not to mention the 640 T (tungsten) film. Even more specialist film.
These are not pipe dreams -- Ferrania did make such products in the past and has the know how.

And a manufacturer that explicitely shows a commitment to E6 films for the years to come, is something unusual these days.

Wallendo · May 18, 2017

I have seen nothing to suggest that Ferrania's E-6 film will be cheap.

In fact, I don't see how a smaller scale operation can create quality film that can be sold for less than what is charged now by Fuji.

flavio81 · May 18, 2017

Wallendo said:
I have seen nothing to suggest that Ferrania's E-6 film will be cheap.

In fact, I don't see how a smaller scale operation can create quality film that can be sold for less than what is charged now by Fuji.

We have talked about this topic several times in this thread, but basically Fuji has a BIG SCALE machinery for producing film. Whenever they make small scale production (like E6 films, which are a tiny fraction of their former film production), they do it uneconomically.

Ferrania is preparing a small scale operation so they can produce small batches of film (read: "batches of film of appropiate size for the digital-era") in a way that hopefully would be more economical than Fuji with their big coaters.

railwayman3 · May 18, 2017

flavio81 said:
Kodak has nothing yet.
Fuji is the only E6 manufacturer left and it charges whichever high prices they want for their films.
Extremely high prices.
I, who in the past was a longtime Fuji fan, sometimes feel insulted by how the prices go up and up every year, with no clear indication of Fuji wanting to have a long-term commitment to E6.

"AgfaPhoto" is repackaged Fuji at lower prices, we don't know how long we'll benefit from it.
The only other thing left is the Agfa 200-speed "Aviphot Chrome", repackaged by other manufacturers with results which vary from "pleasing soft colors, grain a little big", to "horrible yellowed slides with big grain".

Today, 2017, an inexpensive E6 film is something unusual. There is no alternative today!
Not to mention a 400, 800 or 1000-speed E6 film. That would be a specialist film.
Not to mention the 640 T (tungsten) film. Even more specialist film.
These are not pipe dreams -- Ferrania did make such products in the past and has the know how.

And a manufacturer that explicitely shows a commitment to E6 films for the years to come, is something unusual these days.

Precisely, (some of) the specialist films I had in mind. Even P30 is something different from the main run of B&W films from the main makers.

But P30 isn't an inexpensive product, particularly with postage added, and, as Walledo says, Ferraniachrome won't be, given that the costs of cutting, cassettes and packing are similar for all films. Even Lomo films must have similar overheads, and they aren't cheap. And while "AgfaPhoto" is inexpensive, it certainly isn't pence (and it's a bit ominous that the really cheap AgfaPhoto Vista negative hasn't been restocked in my local "Poundshop" in the UK for about 3 months.....).

flavio81 · May 18, 2017

railwayman3 said:
PBut P30 isn't an inexpensive product, particularly with postage added, and, as Walledo says,

Current P30 has been produced in a scale that is even smaller than what Ferrania wants to do. This is the "alpha" production.

railwayman3 said:
Ferraniachrome won't be, given that the costs of cutting, cassettes and packing are similar for all films.

If they are similar for all films, then current inexpensive films (i.e. Foma 100) show that said cost doesn't amount to much. Come on, it is just a simple aluminium canister with two caps and a plastic spindle. It can probably made for $0.02 / unit, by a Chinese factory.

120 film is another thing, due to the need for a very specific backing paper.

As for cutting and packing, Ferrania already has automatic machinery for this, if i recall correctly. I know they probably are outsourcing those operations for P30, but this is most probably because they want to solve their coating problems first before having to operate their own packaging machinery again.

railwayman3 said:
Even Lomo films must have similar overheads, and they aren't cheap.

Lomo films are expensive because of other reasons, which I won't describe since I don't want to speak ill about Lomography. We need Lomo to survive.

Diapositivo · May 18, 2017

flavio81 said:
We have talked about this topic several times in this thread, but basically Fuji has a BIG SCALE machinery for producing film. Whenever they make small scale production (like E6 films, which are a tiny fraction of their former film production), they do it uneconomically.

Ferrania is preparing a small scale operation so they can produce small batches of film (read: "batches of film of appropiate size for the digital-era") in a way that hopefully would be more economical than Fuji with their big coaters.

All that, plus the fact that Fuji is now a monopolist and can adopt monopoly pricing.
In fact, the artificial differentiation of the market, with Fuji brand and AgfaPhoto brand, is a sign of a monopolist who "extracts" the highest possible value with a perceived differentiation of the product.

railwayman3 · May 18, 2017

flavio81 said:
If they are similar for all films, then current inexpensive films (i.e. Foma 100) show that said cost doesn't amount to much. Come on, it is just a simple aluminium canister with two caps and a plastic spindle. It can probably made for $0.02 / unit, by a Chinese factory.

Maybe, if you want to order 10,000,000 blank cassettes (and the better quality Chinese factories have moved on from being cheap sweat-shops). Add on design, labelling, an outer can or foil packing, design, printing and manufacture of cartons, and outer packaging, perforating, numbering and cutting of master rolls, some inevitable wastage at the various stages.....then distributing, carriage, advertising, distributors' costs and markup, "paperwork" and admin, factory and office overheads, R&D (if you're hoping to make new types and sizes), a "market level" of wages and social taxes (when you have to move away from volunteer staff), local and state taxes, and hopefully a bit of profit...even if, as proprietor or backer, you want to plough all thr profit back into the business development, rather then actually needing any wages to live on. All these are similar for every type of film, but a higher unit cost the smaller the production. Probably the little roll of cellulose acetate and emulsion inside is the cheapest part!

Brady Eklund · May 18, 2017

railwayman3 said:
Maybe, if you want to order 10,000,000 blank cassettes (and the better quality Chinese factories have moved on from being cheap sweat-shops). Add on design, labelling, an outer can or foil packing, design, printing and manufacture of cartons, and outer packaging, perforating, numbering and cutting of master rolls, some inevitable wastage at the various stages.....then distributing, carriage, advertising, distributors' costs and markup, "paperwork" and admin, factory and office overheads, R&D (if you're hoping to make new types and sizes), a "market level" of wages and social taxes (when you have to move away from volunteer staff), local and state taxes, and hopefully a bit of profit...even if, as proprietor or backer, you want to plough all thr profit back into the business development, rather then actually needing any wages to live on. All these are similar for every type of film, but a higher unit cost the smaller the production. Probably the little roll of cellulose acetate and emulsion inside is the cheapest part!

There's definitely a balance to be struck where economies of scale meet overcapacity. I'll be interested to see how low Ferrania can bring their prices once they get established. Both Fuji and Kodak have a lot of other products to help support their overhead, but then they have a lot more overhead as well. Whether production can be run effectively while limiting costs will be the true test. If Ferrania can keep their team to a couple dozen people and still keep things running smoothly they have a chance to broaden their demand at the bottom end of the market which should enable them to fill in other niches as well.

flavio81 · May 18, 2017

railwayman3 said:
Maybe, if you want to order 10,000,000 blank cassettes (...) Probably the little roll of cellulose acetate and emulsion inside is the cheapest part!

Ok, let's assume this is true*. (Some guys from Ilford have claimed the film in 120 film is cheaper than the backing paper/spool... i don't believe them, but let's assume this is true as well.)

I can bet that a big part of Ferrania's potential E6 customers will have no problem in buying bulk film.

And here in my country, *all* film photography stores do sell cartridges reloaded from bulk film. So amateurs who don't know how to reload film, will still be able to use Ferrania E6 film.

So, more or less, problem solved.

* Last time i went into a local store, a reloadable 35mm cartridge was 1/20th the price of a new roll of Ilford FP4. That is, 1 PEN versus about 20 PEN. And this was an expensive store.
So i don't buy the theory that the canister is going to be a big cost.

MattKing · May 18, 2017

Flavio:
I am quite sure that Simon Galley was telling the truth when he confirmed that it cost Harman more money to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 film than it did to make a single roll of 120 film. The reason that the film part of the equation is smaller is that when you make lots of film you can bring down the per roll cost.
Just as he was telling the truth when Harman relatively recently invested substantial amounts of capital to buy the machinery to make their own 35mm cassettes, because they were having trouble with the cost and reliability of the available suppliers.
The problem with any of these components is that each of them is only inexpensive if one is using them with some economies of scale.
If Ferrania makes high volumes of film, the cost of the film per roll will be small.
Same goes for film cassettes, film boxes, shipping, customer support, property taxes, electricity, water, salaries, etc., etc. - the per roll costs depend heavily on how many rolls are involved.

bvy · May 18, 2017

Update from Ferrania:
Dead Link Removed

Wallendo · May 18, 2017

bvy said:
Update from Ferrania:
Dead Link Removed

An interesting quote from the update:

"In addition, without P30 and the sales we have generated, we would have been forced to close our doors earlier this year - a fact that cannot be understated. Creating P30 ALLOWS us to continue forward with creating color reversal film for the market, of which your rewards will be the “ALPHA” version."

fdonadio · May 18, 2017

Back to the order number reports:

Order: 9086x
Date: March 15th, 7:27pm

International (non-US) customer, still expecting my card to be charged.

pbromaghin · May 18, 2017

flavio81 said:
* Last time i went into a local store, a reloadable 35mm cartridge was 1/20th the price of a new roll of Ilford FP4. That is, 1 PEN versus about 20 PEN. And this was an expensive store.
So i don't buy the theory that the canister is going to be a big cost.

In my local store, it is about 1/3 the price of a roll of FP4. It's been a while since I looked anywhere else, but it hasn't been far off from that.

ME Super · May 18, 2017

Agulliver said:
I've been going through slides I shot in the early 2000s, when Kodachrome was still around and when I could get hold of cheap slide film from Tura. There are some truly lovely images there, shot in places like Barcelona, Las Vegas, the Hoover Dam, Paris, London. Kind of makes me want to buy some E6 film and dust off one of my projectors should the right opportunity arise.

You should most definitely do this. The first time my son and my nephew saw a projected slide, they said "This is better than digital."

FILM Ferrania · May 18, 2017

Europan said:
The Kickstarter promise was for motion-picture film, 16mm and Super-8. Remains to be seen whether Film Ferrania will first make small gauge movie film or not. Forget 127 and 126, think of the thousands of 16mm and 8mm cameras that are not crappy at all! There are plastic Kodak Brownie 8s, no doubt, but the vast majority of small gauge ciné cameras are full metal. Ciné-Kodak, Ciné-Kodak Special, Kodak Reflex Special, Victor, Bell & Howell, Paillard-Bolex, Agfa Movex, Pathé, Keystone, Zeiss-Ikon, GiC, Beaulieu, Stewart-Warner, Miller, Ercsam, Eumig, Bauer, Niezoldi & Krämer, Suchánek-Meopta, Zenit, Canon, Sankyo, Fujica, Crown, Nikon, Elmo, Mamiya, Arco, Valiant, Mansfield, Simplex, DeVry, DeJur, Revere, Debrie, Geyer, Arnold & Richter, SEM, Crouzet, Cinéric, Armor, Emel, Noris, Cima, Pentacon, Dekko, GB-Bell & Howell, Bencini, Wittnauer, Fairchild, Mitchell, Maurer, Ditmar, Bolex, Bolsey, CP, Frezzolini, Argus, Facine, Kiew, Christen, Lévêque, Croydon, Morex, PLB, Schalie, Siemens & Halske, I’m not becoming tired naming them. If Ferraniachrome doesn’t get a foot in that door, Ektachrome will.

Thank you for this wonderful list. I'm making a copy for reference.

With the exception of Super 8, which of course requires cartridges, we have no problem converting and finishing cinema film. We can do it all in-house today (technically) with nothing more than our slitter and perforating machines.

The issue with releasing these as commercial products right now is about three specific things:
1. Production capacity: Slitting into 16mm or 8mm bands means that we cannot make 35mm still film from that band. With thousands of pre-orders for 35mm in our system and many thousands more ready to buy, we must convert every square centimeter to 35mm still for the short term.
2. Production consistency: As you know, cinema films must be flawless across the entire band. A big part of what we're doing right now is working toward achieving the level of consistency required by cinema customers - coating after coating and month after month. There remains much work to do on this front.
3. The base: Until we can make our own acetate, we must purchase what is available in the market. Already we've had to warn people away from motor-driven 35mm cameras because we have had some rolls snap in-camera. We are working hard to fix this for still and only then will we be confident of the film working in cinema cameras.

FILM Ferrania · May 18, 2017

flavio81 said:
Then consider 220 film; i've been writing on this thread, very early, that they should release 220 as well.

220 gives you no backing paper (on shots), and double the shots per roll, while being totally compatible with 120 developing reels/etc.

In pains me to say that making 220 will require a fairly significant investment to commission new parts for our 120 converting and finishing line. We have blueprints in hand and a manufacturer in our rolodex - but first, we must reassemble the 120 machine and install it. That's one big chunk of cash and about 3 months time. Then we have to commission the parts, which is likely to be 3x the cost and time of installing the 120 line in the first place. Then of course we have to test everything, make tweaks if necessary, etc.

For sure *I* want 220. My go-to medium format camera is a Pentax 67 and I prefer 220 for that machine at all times. And for sure there are a lot of 220-capable cameras still out in the world. But how many, relative to 120 cameras? Enough to warrant the investment of time and money?

We will be polling the film community A LOT once we're at the point of deciding which formats to bring into production. We cannot afford to sink time and money into something just because we can theoretically produce it with machinery we have. We must know for sure that when we build it, they will come.

Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency