Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[Chris Livsey]

I understand Ilford cuts both Delta 3200 135 and 120 formats from the same master roll with 0,125mm/5mil support.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf
They do.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I believe you but I'm telling you what Kodak does. And, I'm also relating what used to be done industry wide.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

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.

Are you sure those "flakes" are not the rem jet backing?

PE

 

[Cholentpot]

Are you sure those "flakes" are not the rem jet backing?

PE

Yeah, first off the Remjet doesn't flake off as much as slimes off all over the place. Also, this is on the emulsion side. Remjet leaves a white smear and this leaves a pink or clear patch. Most of the time it comes off the edges so it's no big deal, but I do get missing patches in middles once in a moon. Bad cases leave me with a patch of one frame on a different frame or on the shiny side. A toothpick will scrape it off. Fuji and Kodak are prone to this as far as I've seen. The Fuji Remjet however comes off far far easier than the Kodak stuff. The Kodak stuff stains my hands and need a cloth or sponge to completely wipe off, it also stains my reels something awful.

 

[kb3lms]

... But when one begins sailing in uncharted waters, one has to expect new and unforeseen difficulties. ..

Timely thought. In the book, "The Revenge of Analog", author David Sax* has dedicated a chapter to the revival of film and likens FILM Ferrania's task to raising a sunken ship from the ocean floor and refitting it to sail once again. That's probably about right. Congrats to them for getting this far with what appears to be the finish line in sight.

*A good book, by the way. Worth reading for those who are tired of being digitized.

 

[kb3lms]

So what are the detriments of using 4 mil support for 35mm?

Actually, I'd ask the question the other way, what are the detriments of using 5 mil support for 120? Ideally, there probably is a difference, but compared to what that we don't have now? Maybe it's kind of like using a 220 magazine for 120, not ideal but as a practical matter it works just fine.

I doubt FF will be using two different supports for 135 and 120 due to the volume and economic issues.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...what are the detriments of using 5 mil support for 120?...

That's how thick the base of 120 TMAX films was when kodak introduced them in 1987. After customer cameras jammed, Kodak reduced the base to its current 4.7 mil thickness, and the problems stopped.

I seem to recall it was mostly Mamiya reverse-curl holders that jammed, but am not 100% certain. Others with similar film paths might have also experienced the problem.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yeah, first off the Remjet doesn't flake off as much as slimes off all over the place. Also, this is on the emulsion side. Remjet leaves a white smear and this leaves a pink or clear patch. Most of the time it comes off the edges so it's no big deal, but I do get missing patches in middles once in a moon. Bad cases leave me with a patch of one frame on a different frame or on the shiny side. A toothpick will scrape it off. Fuji and Kodak are prone to this as far as I've seen. The Fuji Remjet however comes off far far easier than the Kodak stuff. The Kodak stuff stains my hands and need a cloth or sponge to completely wipe off, it also stains my reels something awful.

You should inform Kodak, as that film is very hard. It uses 3rd generation hardeners and withstands temperatures up to 120F.

PE

 

[cmacd123]

I also believe that Fuji's double 8 film was on a thinner polyester base that held more per spool.

Fuji Single 8 was on a poly base, but with the same format as Super 8. this let them use smaller cassettes with 50 ft loads. the cassettes only will hold 30 some feet of the conventional 5 mil film. I don't believe that fuji ever offered a super 8 film, at least under their own brand....

Ilford Once tried to sell "HP5 Motor Drive Film" using a thin poly base to cram 72 exposures into a standard 35mm cassette. Freestyle had great bargains on it when it went out of date! the Ilford folks had even had a special 72 exposure Stainless tank made, as well as a cute Plastic 72 exposure reel to fit a regular Stainless tank. I propably still have a rool of it at the bottom of my film freezer. The Poly base made for negatives with a lot of tendency to curl.

 

[peter k.]

Side note..

"The Revenge of Analog", author David Sax*

Shocked to have found it available in our Library group... not only that, it is out on loan with another waiting for it, so I'm third in line.. Hmmm perhaps another sign of analog is returning ...

 

[klownshed]

In the book, "The Revenge of Analog",

Tried to buy this on amazon, but it's not available as an eBook.


(*Ducks*)

;-)

 

[Toffle]

That's how thick the base of 120 TMAX films was when kodak introduced them in 1987. After customer cameras jammed, Kodak reduced the base to its current 4.7 mil thickness, and the problems stopped.

I seem to recall it was mostly Mamiya reverse-curl holders that jammed, but am not 100% certain. Others with similar film paths might have also experienced the problem.

I had the same problem with the infamous Lucky SHD in my Bronica GS1. No one to blame but myself.

 

[Nzoomed]

Fuji Single 8 was on a poly base, but with the same format as Super 8. this let them use smaller cassettes with 50 ft loads. the cassettes only will hold 30 some feet of the conventional 5 mil film. I don't believe that fuji ever offered a super 8 film, at least under their own brand....

Ilford Once tried to sell "HP5 Motor Drive Film" using a thin poly base to cram 72 exposures into a standard 35mm cassette. Freestyle had great bargains on it when it went out of date! the Ilford folks had even had a special 72 exposure Stainless tank made, as well as a cute Plastic 72 exposure reel to fit a regular Stainless tank. I probably still have a roll of it at the bottom of my film freezer. The Poly base made for negatives with a lot of tendency to curl.

Sorry, yes thats what I meant. You could hold more footage on your reels with single 8 film, but Fuji still only kept 50 feet on their cassette to keep size down. Im interested to know how well it projected as I know what happens with various film bases in some projectors.

I also know that Wittner-Cinetec had to make modifications to their Super8 cartridges to allow the thinner AGFA Aviphot stock to run through them properly.

Im not sure how much thinner the Agfa stuff was, but ive got a bulk roll of their CN200 that im loading onto 35mm canisters and I can put over 40 exposures on the roll which means i get more shots developed per roll for the same price as a 36 exposure roll!

Yes I do remember reading about Ilford selling 72 exposure rolls.
I dont know why this idea never took off, because you would think having as many shots per roll would be a good thing.

 

[keenmaster486]

I dont know why this idea never took off, because you would think having as many shots per roll would be a good thing.

Maybe because people don't want to lock themselves in to any particular film per camera for an extended time?

 

[MattKing]

I dont know why this idea never took off, because you would think having as many shots per roll would be a good thing.

The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.
Polyester base can be really curly. I would guess labs hated it.
72 exposure films wouldn't fit in many developing reels.
And most people don't want a film that you can't keep appropriate track of exposures with - no cameras have counters that go to 72, and some cameras (e.g. some Retinas) will stop advancing film after a maximum of 38 or so shots.

 

[Nzoomed]

Maybe because people don't want to lock themselves in to any particular film per camera for an extended time?

Yes, but on holidays you typically want to take alot of snaps and changing rolls can can be inconvenient.

The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.
Polyester base can be really curly. I would guess labs hated it.
72 exposure films wouldn't fit in many developing reels.
And most people don't want a film that you can't keep appropriate track of exposures with - no cameras have counters that go to 72, and some cameras (e.g. some Retinas) will stop advancing film after a maximum of 38 or so shots.

Yes thats true, although minilabs can usually handle longer lengths of film.
I hear alot about the curling, but ive never noticed it with the stuff ive shot.

The film counter would be the biggest annoyance, i agree.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have seen films coated on polyester film literally destroying automatic cameras, but never with manual. I guess most everyone stops when things jam, but auto winders do not.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

I have seen films coated on polyester film literally destroying automatic cameras, but never with manual. I guess most everyone stops when things jam, but auto winders do not.

PE

The more automatic cameras became, the more things there were to go wrong with them!
I know that polyester film can cause more damage in projectors also, as it tends to stretch if something jams rather than snapping like acetate film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have seen the teeth pulled from the mechanism by polyester film in one high speed camera. It is stronger than the metal.

PE

 

[Cholentpot]

The polyester base was really tough on cameras if they had even the slightest problem with film advance - acetate film rips if misfed, but polyester survives, potentially at the expense of damage to the camera.
Polyester base can be really curly. I would guess labs hated it.
72 exposure films wouldn't fit in many developing reels.
And most people don't want a film that you can't keep appropriate track of exposures with - no cameras have counters that go to 72, and some cameras (e.g. some Retinas) will stop advancing film after a maximum of 38 or so shots.

My Oly Pen does!

You should inform Kodak, as that film is very hard. It uses 3rd generation hardeners and withstands temperatures up to 120F.

PE

Don't think Kodak would put much stock into my complaints. Random rolls being put through a stills camera bought from someone on APUG who rolled them down themselves. Also using a homebrew method to remove the REMJET. You think baking soda would soften the emulsion to the point that it would flake off?

 

[Photo Engineer]

No, it would not.

 

[Rudeofus]

You think baking soda would soften the emulsion to the point that it would flake off?

If Baking Soda caused any trouble, then no cine film would survive the following process steps. Baking Soda is a lot less alkaline than most film developers, and this includes all color developers I know of.

 

[flavio81]

My Oly Pen does!

LOL! Mine too!

 

[MattKing]

My Oly Pen does!

But does it reach the necessary 144?

 

[Cholentpot]

But does it reach the necessary 144?

It stops at 72 no matter what. I bulk load and tried to stuff 45-50 shots onto a roll, the F3 was fine. The PEN EE3 quit at 72.