• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

Latest Gallery

Rainy Day Trees

A
Rainy Day Trees

  • 5
  • 1
  • 82
One Way

A
One Way

  • 3
  • 1
  • 79

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,154
Messages
2,850,693
Members
101,703
Latest member
arrowactive
Recent bookmarks
0
Status
Not open for further replies.
RattyMouse said:
Who thinks Kodak will have E6 film on the shelves before Ferrania?
Click to expand...
I doubt they will, but I expect that Kodak hope they will beat Ferrania.
According to both companies roadmaps, Ferrania will be first :D
 
My slide projector is ready!
 
Nzoomed said:
Is it really different thickness?
First time ive heard this!
What would the reasons be for this I wonder?
S8 is the same as 35mm, as they often slit down unperforated 35mm into s8 at pro8mm and Wittner-Cinetec.
Click to expand...
The fact that some people re-purpose one stock for use in a different format doesn't mean that the two different formats are usually on the same support.
I wouldn't be surprised if 35mm motion picture film and Super 8 motion picture film are on the same support, but I do know that 135 format still film can be found on different supports.
And 135, 120 and large format (not to mention motion picture) cameras have distinctly different requirements for film rigidity and flatness, due to the ways that films are held and transported, so it makes total sense that the support for those films would differ.
 
MattKing said:
The fact that some people re-purpose one stock for use in a different format doesn't mean that the two different formats are usually on the same support.
I wouldn't be surprised if 35mm motion picture film and Super 8 motion picture film are on the same support, but I do know that 135 format still film can be found on different supports.
And 135, 120 and large format (not to mention motion picture) cameras have distinctly different requirements for film rigidity and flatness, due to the ways that films are held and transported, so it makes total sense that the support for those films would differ.
Click to expand...

OK, well I learn something new every day!
So I assume 120 needs to be alot thicker to keep it from curling in the camera i expect?

I had assumed that Ferrania were planning to make their first kickstarter batch in all the various formats (s8, 120 and 35mm) from the same master roll.
 
Wallendo said:
I haven't seen E-6 film on a shelf in 15 years :wink:
I expect for Ferrania E-6 to arrive in my mailbox before Ektachrome.
Click to expand...
There's still plenty around here in London.
Even today I saw Fuji Provia and 2 versions of Velvia in 2 shops.
 
I love how this thread has evolved - with many micro-tangents and clusters of sparring...

It's as close to a real-life conversation as is possible online - a fact that I relish.

I recently watched an amazing documentary about the US politician Barney Frank, called "Compared to What?"

This was Frank's answer to most complaints leveled against him during in his 40+ years in politics. He used it often enough that it became a sort of catch-phrase - and thus the title of the documentary.

Seeing this documentary made me realize that for about three years now, I've been asking myself the same question before answering any complaint regarding FILM Ferrania - and also while weighing the pros and cons of any public announcement we have made.

Compared to what?

As I've said ad nauseum, our status is highly fluid from day to day because we are a tiny group tackling huge problems and solving them on the fly.

And so, after asking myself this question, I proceed to answer the complaint, or write the post, as best I can, based on the available information at that moment, and with the same openness and also the same willingness to be wrong that we have shown from the beginning.

What is the alternative? Compared to what?
 
Nzoomed said:
So I assume 120 needs to be alot thicker to keep it from curling in the camera i expect?
Click to expand...
Actually, it can be thinner - don't forget about the role that backing paper plays.
 
NZoomed, you addressed the wrong part of my post. It was directed to the support and to the factory scaling plans.

In any event, here it is again!

1. 35 mm is on 5 mil support.
2. 120 is on 4 mil support
3. Sheet films are on 7 mil support.

These are all approximate thicknesses. It varies between manufacurers. The sheet films are thicker to prevent buckling and facilitate even processing and the 120 and 220 films are thinner to allow for the paper base in the first case, and the longer length in the second.

PE
 
keenmaster486 said:
Very interesting...

So what are the detriments of using 4 mil support for 35mm?
Click to expand...
Movie film cameras and projectors and roller transport processors can be real tough on movie film.
And thinner film is more likely to curl.
 
Photo Engineer said:
Tearing of sprocket holes is not uncommon in mo pic equipment and then jamming.
PE
Click to expand...

Movie Negative is often the 5 mil Acetate. they use Bell and Howell Perfs (BH1866) which are slightly smaller than the Kodak Standard (KS1870) perfs we see on still film. Back in the 1950-1960 era, Movie print film, that you might see projected in a theatre, gradually went to Polyester (ESTAR) and started getting slightly thinner, so that it maintained the same stiffness as the Older Acetate stuff. Still with the Ks1870 perfs like you see on still film.

The KS perfs are actually slightly stronger than the BH perfs, as the radius of the corners is larger. BUT the Negative only has to be transported at 24 Frames a second intermittently Once when shot, and all subsequent stages it is run continuously and smoothly.

The projection print has to Move in something like 0.007 seconds from one frame to another (18mm) (1/6 of the 24th of a second with the typical 3 blade shutter ) that it gets the limelight) so it needs the stronger perfs.
 
keenmaster486 said:
Very interesting...
So what are the detriments of using 4 mil support for 35mm?
Click to expand...

with the same base, it would not be as strong. More chance to damage the perforations. Also one must be careful as some cameras will not be able to hold a thiner film flat. Some Poly film is in fact thinner, that Aviphot 200 E6 stuff for example.
 
Some of the more basic winding mechanisms in 35mm still cameras can be tough on film stock as well. My Argus C3, Bolsey B2, and Kodak Retina II all seem to give a decent amount of resistance to the film winding in tensioning the shutter.
 
cmacd123 said:
Movie Negative is often the 5 mil Acetate. they use Bell and Howell Perfs (BH1866) which are slightly smaller than the Kodak Standard (KS1870) perfs we see on still film. Back in the 1950-1960 era, Movie print film, that you might see projected in a theatre, gradually went to Polyester (ESTAR) and started getting slightly thinner, so that it maintained the same stiffness as the Older Acetate stuff. Still with the Ks1870 perfs like you see on still film.

The KS perfs are actually slightly stronger than the BH perfs, as the radius of the corners is larger. BUT the Negative only has to be transported at 24 Frames a second intermittently Once when shot, and all subsequent stages it is run continuously and smoothly.

The projection print has to Move in something like 0.007 seconds from one frame to another (18mm) (1/6 of the 24th of a second with the typical 3 blade shutter ) that it gets the limelight) so it needs the stronger perfs.
Click to expand...

I've torn regular film with some of my older stills cameras but I've not yet done it with ECN-2. However I've found the emulsion is prone to flaking off during development. Not very hardy.
 
cmacd123 said:
with the same base, it would not be as strong. More chance to damage the perforations. Also one must be careful as some cameras will not be able to hold a thiner film flat. Some Poly film is in fact thinner, that Aviphot 200 E6 stuff for example.
Click to expand...
Yes thats correct, means i can bulk load more of it on my rolls too :smile:
I also believe that Fuji's double 8 film was on a thinner polyester base that held more per spool.
 
Photo Engineer said:
1. 35 mm is on 5 mil support.
2. 120 is on 4 mil support
3. Sheet films are on 7 mil support.
These are all approximate thicknesses. It varies between manufacurers. The sheet films are thicker to prevent buckling and facilitate even processing and the 120 and 220 films are thinner to allow for the paper base in the first case, and the longer length in the second.
PE
Click to expand...
I understand Ilford cuts both Delta 3200 135 and 120 formats from the same master roll with 0,125mm/5mil support.
 
RattyMouse said:
Who thinks Kodak will have E6 film on the shelves before Ferrania?
Click to expand...

On shelves...possibly...as Ferrania may well have fewer retailers in their distribution network. I can imagine seeing Ektachrome in Boots and my local camera shop while they may well not have easy/economical access to the Ferrania product.

But I fully expect Ferrania to get their product out first.

I still see a lot of entitlement here...people who just seem to have no understanding of the hurdles faced by the Film Ferrania people. "I want, I want, I want". It's rather saddening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom