Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[stormpetrel]

When Dave announced in an interview for the Art of Photography that P30 was the film Fellini used to make the movie 8 1/2 I was gobsmacked. P30 is not just a necessary step in the production of their future chrome film, it is also a piece of history. Instead of simply making a random B&W emulsion to test their coating machine, they succeed in putting back on the market a great and solid piece of film they could rely on in the future. With its 80 ISO and its rich silver content, this film is different enough from the other low speed films available on the market to have its own aficionados.

As any other company in the world, they have to diversify their production enough and at a minimal cost, so their revenues do not depend on a single product. This is basic business. It would have been a mistake not to produce this film at this stage especially because the R&D cost is minimal and also because the film was a famous one.

Thank god the guys at Ferrania are not the brilliant experts who hijacked this thread.

I hope they will find a way to produce or source the 120 back paper. I'm dying to to try the P30 with my medium format cameras!

Thank you Dave for sharing all the progress and obstacles Ferrania are going through. I greatly appreciate it .

 

[cmacd123]

When Dave announced in an interview for the Art of Photography that P30 was the film Fellini used to make the movie 8 1/2 I was gobsmacked. P30 is not just a necessary step in the production of their future chrome film, it is also a piece of history. Instead of simply making a random B&W emulsion to test their coating machine, they succeed in putting back on the market a great and solid piece of film they could rely on in the future. With its 80 ISO and its rich silver content, this film is different enough from the other low speed films.

The P30 is also an interesting option if it becomes available in 16mm.

Movie cameras tend to have a shutter speed that is set by the frame rate, so one has to deal with a fixed speed of about 1/60th of a second. Having a film at 80 is much better than having one at 250 if you are shooting outdoors on a nice day and don't want to deal with using f22 and or ND filters.

I did note that the current recommendations do suggest that the current film may have problems with breaking if used in a motorized camera. Movie film runs at 24 starts and stops a second so it is REALLY motorized. I take it that the weakness must have something to do with the edge treatment in the slitter. One of the videos showed a rig to melt the edge of the mini-jumbo to avoid coating problems. this little bit of technology would have to be solved to make Movie stock, OR to make the E-6 stock as so labs use a movie style processor which runs the film at 100 ft a minute.

Of course the mini jumbos that they are using are fairly short to cut 400ft movie loads out of, so any movie stock may have to wait until the coating line is modified to use larger rolls.

Dealing with the practicalities of getting mechanical things right is something that makes much more sense when they are working with a b&W film, rather than with a colour film which is at least 3 times more complex to make, and would likely require tests to be done on a full E-6 process to give any results.

 

[Europan]

The P30 is also an interesting option if it becomes available in 16mm.

Movie cameras tend to have a shutter speed that is set by the frame rate, so one has to deal with a fixed speed of about 1/60th of a second. Having a film at 80 is much better than having one at 250 if you are shooting outdoors on a nice day and don't want to deal with using f22 and or ND filters.

I did note that the current recommendations do suggest that the current film may have problems with breaking if used in a motorized camera. Movie film runs at 24 starts and stops a second so it is REALLY motorized. I take it that the weakness must have something to do with the edge treatment in the slitter.

You have a humorous way of expression, Charles. I doubt that Pancromatico 30 will be made as 16mm film. Then movie cameras have shutter opening angles up to 235 degrees (Mitchell 16). Exposure time is given by that angle which itself depends on the mechanics in play for shifting the film. With a 180 degrees opening shutter, quite common, exposure time is half the cycle time like 1/48th second at 24 frames per second. 172.8 degrees are in use when shooting at 24 fps under the light of HMI lamps on 50 Hz mains. Something between 170 and 135 degrees is found with many cameras.

Next, we cannot compare film gates of still photo cameras and motion-picture cameras. Movie film for origination is usually very lightly lubricated, namely with Carnauba wax. What concerns the film edges we should first have to verify whether the standards are met or not. ISO 491 and ISO 69 define the width of the freshly cut strip in 35 and 16 respectively. The measures are 34,975 mm ± 0,025 and 15,95 mm ± 0,025. Originally, 16,00 mm were allowed with the early national standards. Film too wide is a more serious problem than a little rough or wavy edges. As of the slitting intricacies, one trick is to speed up so much that the knives become warm . . .

 

[FILM Ferrania]

I think Film Ferrania has forgotten that 5500 backers gave them over $320,000 to help them achieve their dream. That fact seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. When you are years late in sending out rewards, and there is no fulfillment date in sight, you should expect a little push back, and continue to remain grateful.

If the Kickstarter had failed, it's unlikely there would be a FILM Ferrania today, and so it's quite impossible to forget our Backers.

But if we fail at any time, there will be no rewards. And so, getting past the point of potential failure is our obligation above and beyond anything else.

I would say that this 111 page thread, and it's predecessor, are at least some evidence that no one has been forgotten.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

The P30 is also an interesting option if it becomes available in 16mm.

Movie cameras tend to have a shutter speed that is set by the frame rate, so one has to deal with a fixed speed of about 1/60th of a second. Having a film at 80 is much better than having one at 250 if you are shooting outdoors on a nice day and don't want to deal with using f22 and or ND filters.

I did note that the current recommendations do suggest that the current film may have problems with breaking if used in a motorized camera. Movie film runs at 24 starts and stops a second so it is REALLY motorized. I take it that the weakness must have something to do with the edge treatment in the slitter. One of the videos showed a rig to melt the edge of the mini-jumbo to avoid coating problems. this little bit of technology would have to be solved to make Movie stock, OR to make the E-6 stock as so labs use a movie style processor which runs the film at 100 ft a minute.

Of course the mini jumbos that they are using are fairly short to cut 400ft movie loads out of, so any movie stock may have to wait until the coating line is modified to use larger rolls.

Dealing with the practicalities of getting mechanical things right is something that makes much more sense when they are working with a b&W film, rather than with a colour film which is at least 3 times more complex to make, and would likely require tests to be done on a full E-6 process to give any results.

Hi Charles,
You are correct that about 90% of the problem we have making cinema film at this point in time is due to the base material being unsuitable. Based on what we have learned in the past 10 months about availability of triacetate in the market, it's likely to remain an issue until we are able to get our own base-making operations up and running.
The other 10% part of the problem is, as Europan points out, we really need to get our Kampf slitter online to allow for the precision required for cinema spools. The two slitters we have right now are antiques, custom built by Ferrania in their former fabrication workshop, and are simply not suitable for slitting cinema film. (This is only 10% of the problem because we could of course send our miniJumbos out for slitting by another company...)

 

[FILM Ferrania]

And, as for Dave, I give him credit for taking the brunt of the comments here. You guys should give him a break for a change.

PE

I really appreciate this very much, PE...

As someone else pointed out, this is a forum, not a PR channel - and because of that, I'm straddling a fine line between being spokesman and just another film nerd.

Most of you fine folks seem to appreciate this. Others want to draw a clear distinction between the two roles, which I also understand, even if I don't feel the need to capitulate.

It's a forum and I want it to be a forum, nothing more or less.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

From some of the tests that have been posted here and the website it looks like this might be a film I want to use a lot, do you know when we would be able to purchase more?
I know you still haven't gotten out all the pre-orders yet.

Hi Don, it's our greatest desire to be able to say when the shop will reopen, but we simply do not know. It's incredibly frustrating, and as I said up-thread, Nicola is absorbed in this topic completely until it's fixed.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

An ISO 400 film is quite a bit harder than an ISO 100 film unless you have an existing formula to work from.

PE

We have existing formulae for P33 (160 ISO) and P36 (320 ISO). So we have a bit of a head-start on those - but only when we have a lot of other things are nailed down.

 

[cmacd123]

We have existing formulae for P33 (160 ISO)

Nostalgia Time, when I was starting to develop film as a Kid, shooting with My Brownie Starflash! the film was almost always 3M "Dynapan", which I believe was another name for P33. (I did find a couple of 127 rolls of P33, and the spools and backing paper were identical to the dynapan.) the only roll of P33 I ever got in 35mm was outdated and suffered from a light leak on my recently purchased 5$ used Beirette camera.

 

[Nzoomed]

Hi Charles,
You are correct that about 90% of the problem we have making cinema film at this point in time is due to the base material being unsuitable. Based on what we have learned in the past 10 months about availability of triacetate in the market, it's likely to remain an issue until we are able to get our own base-making operations up and running.
The other 10% part of the problem is, as Europan points out, we really need to get our Kampf slitter online to allow for the precision required for cinema spools. The two slitters we have right now are antiques, custom built by Ferrania in their former fabrication workshop, and are simply not suitable for slitting cinema film. (This is only 10% of the problem because we could of course send our miniJumbos out for slitting by another company...)

I believe that Kodak shut down their acetate production about 2 years ago from memory.
I think they said they were now importing it from Europe(Germany) I expect that its up to the task for cine film if Kodak is using it, but i suspect you will be probably needing to source from the same supplier?

 

[cmacd123]

I believe that Kodak shut down their acetate production about 2 years ago from memory.
I think they said they were now importing it from Europe(Germany) I expect that its up to the task for cine film if Kodak is using it, but i suspect you will be probably needing to source from the same supplier?

Kodak did say that they were keeping a large stock and whould be buying outside when they ran that down. BUT it does seem like the 35mm gray base on both Foma and Ilford film is the same exact shade of gray, which may indicate that the one supplier is a single point of failure in European film production.

Problem is as Bob Shanebrook points out in his book, running a acetate film line is something that is hard to both start and stop.

 

[wlodekmj]

We have existing formulae for P33 (160 ISO) and P36 (320 ISO). So we have a bit of a head-start on those - but only when we have a lot of other things are nailed down.

Thank you Dave for keeping us informed - and thank you especially for the P30 which I finally received on Saturday June 24.

I see that this is a recent version, as it has P30 and FERRANIA along the top edge, and frame numbers along the lower edge. I look forward to the above further b/w emulsions, but - of course - especially to the 'chrome - Ferraniachrome was the first slide film I used, 51 years ago, and the slides still look as good as new. I look forward to comparing them to the new Ferraniachrome.

 

[wlodekmj]

We have existing formulae for P33 (160 ISO) and P36 (320 ISO). So we have a bit of a head-start on those - but only when we have a lot of other things are nailed down.

Thank you Dave for keeping us informed - and thank you especially for the P30 which I finally received on Saturday June 24.

I see that this is a recent version, as it has P30 and FERRANIA along the top edge, and frame numbers along the lower edge. I look forward to the above further b/w emulsions, but - of course - especially to the 'chrome - Ferraniachrome was the first slide film I used, 51 years ago, and the slides still look as good as new. I look forward to comparing them to the new Ferraniachrome.

 

[PittP]

Ferraniachrome ...(of)... 51 years ago, and the slides still look as good as new.

wlodekmj, thats an impressive statement! (mine are not so good .) How do you store and keep your slides in such good shape?
Cheers, Pitt

 

[Diapositivo]

wlodekmj, thats an impressive statement! (mine are not so good .) How do you store and keep your slides in such good shape?
Cheers, Pitt

Would be it correct to say that conservation of slide film material depends, given normal dark and dry storage conditions, not on the brand and type used but only on the process? I mean: accurate rinsing, use of some form of bactericide during the process, and (possibly) higher temperature of drying?

Or are there, actually, some materials that, even with the best process and the best conservation, would inevitably show deterioration after a few decades?

I suspect that all deterioration of colour material is ultimately due to the laboratory taking shortcuts, because - in this like in other cases - people report very different conservation capabilities for the same material.

 

[Berri]

It looks like we have a new colour reversal film to play with, rooleu-maco Vario chrome. They say this film could be exposed between 200 and 400 iso with no adjustments in the process. It looks like Ferrania might have another competitor...

 

[DaveTheWalker]

It looks like we have a new colour reversal film to play with, rooleu-maco Vario chrome. They say this film could be exposed between 200 and 400 iso with no adjustments in the process. It looks like Ferrania might have another competitor...

Do you have a link to that, Berri?

 

[afriman]

This is from Macodirect's price list (http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/PREISLISTE_MACO_PHOTO_FEB_2017.pdf):

I hope it's not just re-packaged CR200 (or something like it).

 

[Berri]

I

This is from Macodirect's price list (http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/PREISLISTE_MACO_PHOTO_FEB_2017.pdf):

View attachment 181951

I hope it's not just re-packaged CR200 (or something like it).

I think it could be produced by agfa Belgium so it might be something like cr200, perhaps an improved version of it?

 

[Berri]

They just released some more informational through their Instagram and fb account a. It is a 320iso speed film.

 

[Berri]

... slightly visible grain and warmish color...I think it is the same as cr200. No thanks

 

[Brady Eklund]

I talked to someone at Freestyle and they said that CR200 and CN200 were discontinued and were being replaced with a new emulsion. I think that is this new Variochrome. I rather liked CN200, despite the weird base.

 

[Diapositivo]

If this is a new production (and not a re-badged old production) then this is very good news indeed!

 

[Prest_400]

If this is a new production (and not a re-badged old production) then this is very good news indeed!

There were some Photokina rumours about an ISO 320 emulsion related to Maco-Rollei, which seems to be it.
Now, it does say limited Edition... could this be a forgotten master roll of old 320 ektachome (a la FPP retropan). It's been quite a while since 320 slide was mainstream

 

[Brady Eklund]

The datasheets for CN200 went into a lot of detail about cross-processing in E6 and the results were color shifted, but not that dramatically, so it seems to me the goal was to develop a film that yield similar color in both C-41 and E-6 chemistry. The consolidation of CN200 and CR200 into a single product(if they weren't that already) at a higher speed is an interesting idea. The comments in this thread about the acetate supply may explain why they tried the synthetic base.

 

[railwayman3]

I've tended to avoid these Rollei films and other apparently "repacked" or "rebadged" offerings, having read of various issues, and, I suppose, a feeling that possibly they may be of lower quality or poorer QC. Having looked around online, there are, however, some examples of very good quality being produced, e.g.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...base-cn200-color-film-for-street-photography/ (I've no connection with that site, just a random link from a Google search.)
Might be time for me to try them out, particularly if there is a faster slide version.