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.
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"
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
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.
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.
It sucked. It would still suck. Disc is one that's best forgotten.
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.
Unless someone is a Pro and speed is important, I never understood why auto-loading was such a big deal.
Auto loading also allowed for changing film types / speed on the fly.
PE
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?