Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[Nzoomed]

This is a better answer than I could have given.

Just in case, I have sent an email to ask if we will have the capability.

It will be interesting indeed to see if they do have the capability to do so, but as others have mentioned, it would be a great advantage to see 200 foot super8 cartridges for the higher end cameras made available.

Putting that aside, if making too many formats such as APS was such a burden, would you be open to supplying the conversion equipment to another company such as Wittner if they were open to that?

They are already cutting down and respooling bulk rolls from AGFA for their wittnerchrome stock, and i imagine they will be doing the same with Ferrania stock possibly too from what i gather on their website.
They may or may not be open to packing APS film, but suppose they or some other company was, then this could be a good option, as you can still go on producing film and someone else can take the hassle away with converting it into such formats and selling it under their brand while you can go on and concentrate on what films you are capable of.
That would make the APS "camp" happy anyway, just a thought

 

[FILM Ferrania]

The forum is appropriate, but it certainly deserves its own thread.

With a title like: "Film Ferrania wants to know about the E6 lab you like to use"

done!

 

[FILM Ferrania]

BTW, about how far is the factory from Milan?

2hrs 15min says goo.gl

 

[LJH]

Have you got any further with your thoughts on An annual ULF offering? Thanks.

 

[Maurizio]

One of the major problems with SOUND SUPER 8 was that it was nearly impossible to edit since to sound was offset from the image

Hi again. I just thought to film my children in super 8 sound. I don´t need to edit.. Not making a movie.
But thanks to all who answered. Now I have a better understanding of the manufacturing problems related to Sound Super 8.
Dave, my question is now this one:
I see there are super 8 cartridges from the first batch still available: how to book some of them?
Thanks,
Maurizio

 

[cmacd123]

For 16mm Magnetic sound, used mostly for TV news, there were Magnasync recorders which could transfer the sound to another strip of film, or even move it to be beside the images. The picture could then be edited, and the sound moved back. Oviouly the editor only got one shot at that, and one of the transfers had to be done with the film traveling backwards so thet the moved track would not overwrite the original first.

the sound Super 8 was mostly intended for Home movies which are not edited to the second normally.

The editing problem is common to ANY single system sound camera where the sound is recorded on the same strip of film as the picture. which is why double system with the sound on another media and synchronization being restored for the final release is more common.

 

[Roger Cole]

APS film requires a magnetic layer on top of the film, so certain advanced APS cameras (yes, i know, "advanced advanced photo system cameras" ) would record things like exposure information on the film itself, via digital magnetic data recording. This info would then be read by the minilab system.

This is what APS called "IX" (Information eXchange)

So not so easy, to be honest...

But if Ferrania has made APS film in the past, then perhaps they have the equipment.

Or necessary. I know there were a few pretty nice APS cameras but it came late in the game, and one reason it didn't take off was that by then many of the problems it was designed to address (ease of loading for instance) had already been solved in 35mm. (Well, that and the cost. And the fact the negative was smaller than 35mm but the cameras not appreciably so...)

I'll be happy with 35mm and 120. Sheet film in 4x5 would be extra awesome too.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yes i agree with you here, it very well may be a "nice" film to have for some photographers, but there are many other formats that are preferable to start with, i would like to see 110 and 126 before APS, although there are alot of APS cameras that currently cant be used at present, but i dont think the demand for APS film will ever be as high as that of films such as 127, 126 and even 110.


Speaking of defunt formats, whats the story with disc film?
Did Ferrania ever produce it?
It would be interesting to play around with in any old cameras, but this was not a very popular format from what i understand, as it had an extremely small frame size.
Would be interested to know if anyone would like to shoot this again!
Not that im asking you to ever produce this! lol Just curious if you had the conversion equipment.

It sucked. It would still suck. Disc is one that's best forgotten.

 

[Nzoomed]

It sucked. It would still suck. Disc is one that's best forgotten.

Yes, if the small frame size is the reason it sucked, then definatley. But in saying this, those who are asking for Minox film, well the picture frame cant be any better, in fact, the frame size is the same!
But obviously the minox is a spy camera so is quite special in that regard, probably has better quality optics and light metering etc too no doubt.

 

[1337]

Cause of death

Thank you very much for the answer and good luck!

---

OT
APS might be dying/dead but you have to admit that this was one of the best film formats ever made.
IMHO the main cause of death should be the dislike of the format by the labs since they were forced to buy new equipment (labs hates the format = labs don't recommend the right cameras = film doesn't sell = format dies). The size of the film and the arrival of digital cameras were just a symptoms not the cause of death...
And size of the actual cameras? Just look at the attachment. APS made them tiny. Just look at it, the EOS IX makes even Canonet (the loading is nice but APS is still 100% more n00b friendly...) look big not to mention the huge 600D body...
(I'm really sorry about the quality but the only camera I had left was my Nexus 7 )

BTW It was reported that at least some of the APS cameras work without the magnetic coating (you just lose all the "advanced" features)

 

[Prof_Pixel]

It sucked. It would still suck. Disc is one that's best forgotten.

I spent some time working with prototype Disc camera systems at Kodak. A major product issue was the inability to produce production emulsions that had the same granularity as the preproduction research coatings used in system testing. It wasn't till the end of the camera life that the production coatings could match the early research coating in granularity.

The Disc system preformed very nicely with the good coatings used in initial testing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1337 welcome to APUG

 

[Sirius Glass]

APS might be dying/dead but you have to admit that this was one of the best film formats ever made.

No not really, and not ever. Kodak had spent many years trying to move the public to smaller and small formats so that Kodak could increase its profit. 35mm is a larger and better format. 120 is an even larger format and has advantages over 35mm. Even more so with 4"x5" ...

I have a single frame [also called half frame] 35mm camera and the photographs tend to be very grainy.

 

[Nzoomed]

No not really, and not ever. Kodak had spent many years trying to move the public to smaller and small formats so that Kodak could increase its profit. 35mm is a larger and better format. 120 is an even larger format and has advantages over 35mm. Even more so with 4"x5" ...

I have a single frame [also called half frame] 35mm camera and the photographs tend to be very grainy.

I agree, 35mm is as small as i would go.
I never realised that APS film was so small. I always thought it was 35mm, but i guess thats because i never have used it, i remember my friends at the time making a big deal about it and i thought it was pretty cool how you could take panorama shots etc, but i never bothered to get an APS camera.

So very smart on Kodaks part to sell less film for a higher price, especially since the naive consumer wouldnt know too much on the technical side.
Of course the professionals would know better, hence why very few SLR cameras used it.

Its a shame to see all these APS cameras go to waste, but overall 135 film is going to be more popular.
If someone wants to make APS film, thats cool, but i dont know how much demand there will be.

 

[Truzi]

Unless someone is a Pro and speed is important, I never understood why auto-loading was such a big deal.
My first camera was a Brownie 127 format; it was my mom's when she was a kid. I forget how old I was, but it was a single digit. After being shown a couple times, I had no problems loading film. 35mm was even easier.

Back to questions for Ferrania:
There have been a lot of suggestions for different things, and I think we've all noticed the merchandising on the website. At the risk of all the flak you'll get, can you share other merchandising ideas in you have in the works that we can look forward to?

By the way, thanx for the down-loadable photos - they are now in rotation as my computer's wallpaper at work.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Unless someone is a Pro and speed is important, I never understood why auto-loading was such a big deal.

I worked in a photo department from 57 to 61 while I was an undergraduate in college and I hate to think about the number of times a customer brought in a roll of 35mm film for processing only to get it back blank because it never went through the camera. The 126 system solved this problem for point-and-shooters; the Japanese later solved the 35mm problem with auto-load 35mm cameras that worked very well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Auto loading also allowed for changing film types / speed on the fly.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Auto loading also allowed for changing film types / speed on the fly.

PE

Yes true, and correct me if im wrong, but the beauty with APS was that you could rewind the film, put in a new roll and shoot some on a different type of film, then switch back and the camera would read the data recorded magnetically and no how many frames was shot previously, allowing you to continue shooting from where you left.
I think this was a brilliant idea, and if you didnt shoot alot of film, you could always remove it from the camera and put it in the fridge etc.

If only APS was 35mm, it would have been a brilliant film format.

 

[MattKing]

Auto-loading was a revelation for us in the retail end of things.

All the people here who complain about 110 and disk and APS films should instead be praising them. There were more improvements in film because of these relatively tiny formats than all the requests from pros combined.

The smaller, more automated formats were all brought in because people wanted results quickly and conveniently and cheaply. The advancements with APS were an attempt to make the automation of lab processing more effective, and to make reprints easier. It was also hoped that the APS cartridge would be less prone to being discarded by "Aunt Mildred" as unnecessary clutter.

If APS had been successful, and the industry hadn't been over-run by digital, I bet that the data and negative storage advantages would have migrated to larger formats. Think of the advsntage for wedding photographers!

 

[Roger Cole]

I spent some time working with prototype Disc camera systems at Kodak. A major product issue was the inability to produce production emulsions that had the same granularity as the preproduction research coatings used in system testing. It wasn't till the end of the camera life that the production coatings could match the early research coating in granularity.

The Disc system preformed very nicely with the good coatings used in initial testing.

Ok. I'll take your word for that. A neighbor had a camera and even the 4x6 or whatever they were standard sized prints were EXTREMELY grainy - surprisingly so really. This may have been why.

Minox is a more of a novelty of mechanical ingenuity and a niche of the day which is gone as far as use, though I do understand the desire to use a fine old mechanical system even if the need for it is no more.

 

[Roger Cole]

APS had some fine features, I don't dispute that. And with modern films the frame size was "big enough" for most purposes. But it came so late and didn't catch on so even though there were some nice cameras not that many are out there.

 

[padesig]

IMHO is a nonsense thinking today about APS format, one of the worst format of all the film history... I deeply hate this format. Film has the great vantage to be a sort of intrinsically open format, but the APS format had tried to become really hard interact with the film itself, focusing only in lab printing, was a shock for me.

 

[railwayman3]

APS had some fine features, I don't dispute that. And with modern films the frame size was "big enough" for most purposes. But it came so late and didn't catch on so even though there were some nice cameras not that many are out there.

At least here in the UK, APS film and, particularly, the processing and printing was almost always noticably more expensive than 35mm. The "proper" Kodak APS processing had very elegant plastic cases and felt quite an up-market product. However, there were numerous cheap-and-cheerful mail order services for 35mm
(some better than others) with mailers seeming to drop out of every magazine, offering "99p" starter offers, free films and other incentives.

But there were not that many basic reliable D&P services offering reasonable quality at a fair price with no gimmicks, all of which I don't think helped when people realised that they could have instant images from digital. and the option of making prints cheaply on the inkjet printer which a lot of users already had for their PC.

 

[railwayman3]

Ok. I'll take your word for that. A neighbor had a camera and even the 4x6 or whatever they were standard sized prints were EXTREMELY grainy - surprisingly so really. This may have been why.

After my late Mother was widowed, I bought her a Kodak disc camera (one of the more expensive models) but the results were totally disappointing (even with the more expensive Kodak "official" processing), grainy, and under-exposed in anything but full sunlight.

It was soon replaced by a simple point-and-shoot 35mm which she used successfully for several years, even into her 90's. Nice sharp prints, reasonably priced colour D&P, while I was able to process B&W, and make the occasional enlargement either in the
darkroom or scan-and-inkjet, all of which was either impossible or difficult with disc film.

 

[1337]

Damn I'm really sorry about hijacking this thread. IMHO we should just stop with the nonsense and start another APS-only thread if somebody feel the need to discuss it any further.
I just asked about APS since Ferrania had the equipment to make it and it would be nice to know if they kept it. There is no need for immediate start of APS film manufacturing since I still can buy Fuji Nexia and B&W Kodak on eBay and so does everybody else.
/thread