Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[LJH]

Nothing against 16mm and APS (I have zero opinion on either), but ULF options have still not been discussed at any length. Given the simplicity and volume associated with supplying ULF compared to perforated offerings, not to mention being the sole supplier on the global market for Colour, I find this strange...

 

[trythis]

Aside from them being film I don't see how APS or DISC are relevant. How the heck would Apugers enlarge (or scan ) either? I found a couple of exposed discs and scanning a radially symmetric circle is nothing but a nightmare; I can't imagine a more frustrating day in the darkroom.
I think we can all agree: Ferrania can skip both formats.

 

[railwayman3]

Aside from them being film I don't see how APS or DISC are relevant. How the heck would Apugers enlarge (or scan ) either? I found a couple of exposed discs and scanning a radially symmetric circle is nothing but a nightmare; I can't imagine a more frustrating day in the darkroom.
I think we can all agree: Ferrania can skip both formats.

APS, at least, is still a usable analog format, with plenty of reasonable-quality cameras available on the s/h market. It is quite relevant that Ferrania would like to know if there would be any demand for this format, just as they may be interested in the possible demand for any formats, including 127, 126 and LF.

If necessary, you can enlarge or scan APS like any other film, you just take it out of the cartridge. You can put it back, or. more easily, store it in normal negative sleeves.

I'll grant you that Disc really is a dead format, though!

 

[Photo Engineer]

APS is easily scanned or enlarged. Just turn the appropriate "knob" on the cassette and the film pops out ready for use and a masked 35mm holder works in my enlarger.

My wife and I used 35mm, our parents loved 110 or 126, either was good for them, but our children were not photographers until we bought them disc cameras. We had a box of disks and a box of prints. They used to save up to buy new discs and took pix of just about everything! It was not a failure in that sense.

I agree with Fred. The plant could not (at that time) coat disc film that matched research coatings in grain and sharpness. At that time, we in KRL could make coatings for disc cameras that just about matched 35mm.

PE

 

[flavio81]

At that time, we in KRL could make coatings for disc cameras that just about matched 35mm.

Hi Ron,

Sounds like an impressive achievement!! I read that this was the reason to go ahead with the Disc format (plus the aspheric lens on the camera and improved enlarging lenses that probably few labs took the time to use).
Did this finer grained emulsion technology made it to Kodak VR 100 (35mm), or did it take longer to appear on 35mm format?

Greetings,
Flavio.

 

[cmacd123]

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,
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

I will admit the same experience with my father. Got him a disc and he enjoyed it but complained about the pictures, got him a Ricoh AF-5 and showed him how to load it Once. He really liked the results, particlarly when he asked me to get an enlargement made of a shot he had taken of my Cousins Horse, and I got him a 24INCH by 36INCH poster which was still sharp.

I would think that the level of dissatisfaction with the results of the disc film may have pushed all the makers to move their C-41 formulas several generations ahead. I would guess that as the disc film was SO THICK (appears to be thicker than sheet film) it was hard to run through the drying tunnels.

BTW, Disc also had a magnetic element which I think was intended to facilitate reprints. The issue of printing disc probably requires a special negative holder for the enlarger with an extra hole to take the disc hub. and the same sort of lens used for 16mm and Minox Negatives. (brings several sub threads together)

As far as THIS topic, both formats are probably not something to expect anyone to resume making soon. If there is equipment available it could be a lower priority to save iit from the junkman. Given the strange format of APS, I wounder if some of the brands of APS were actually made for OTHER brands on an OEM basis.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

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?

Hi Maurizio,

Unfortunately, the Kickstarter campaign is closed and there is not an option to re-open it.

To explain the numbers you see there - they don't reflect an excess of available film. Those numbers were limits based on the total volume of material we could theoretically produce. We had to put a ceiling on all films to prevent digging ourselves a big hole and creating delays in fulfillment, as so many Kickstarter campaigns often do.

For this first batch, the team will only be making what Kickstarter backers have ordered...

But we will have film for sale to everyone soon after!

 

[FILM Ferrania]

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.

Thanks for noticing. We're not going to go overboard with the merchandise and even though we have tons of ideas, we're going to keep the selections limited both in number and quantity available. We want people to be able to show their support, but we also don't want to pound everyone in the head with tee shirts for 5 more months until film is available.

I am working on some proper desktop wallpapers. Expect to see those soon...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hi Ron,

Sounds like an impressive achievement!! I read that this was the reason to go ahead with the Disc format (plus the aspheric lens on the camera and improved enlarging lenses that probably few labs took the time to use).
Did this finer grained emulsion technology made it to Kodak VR 100 (35mm), or did it take longer to appear on 35mm format?

Greetings,
Flavio.

As Fred said above, the plant gradually approached the quality of research coatings and eventually this was introduced into all films. Unfortunately, you as an average consumer have never compared old and new films sided by side. You complain about grain and sharpness, but the current films are way ahead in both compared to even the disc film of just 20 years ago!

And just as a hint to some others, remember that the smaller things are cut, the more inflexible they feel even if they are the same thickness!

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

As Fred said above, the plant gradually approached the quality of research coatings and eventually this was introduced into all films. Unfortunately, you as an average consumer have never compared old and new films sided by side. You complain about grain and sharpness, but the current films are way ahead in both compared to even the disc film of just 20 years ago!

My first digital imaging project at Kodak involved Disc film scan printing. It was designed to reduce the grain from Disc film images and it actually worked pretty well. Unfortunately, at the time, with the limited computer power available it took some pretty massive dedicated hardware to make it workable on a photofinishing scale.

One of the lessons here we should all remember is that it can be VERY difficult to scale up an emulsion from small research coating machines to production equipment.

 

[flavio81]

You complain about grain and sharpness, but the current films are way ahead in both compared to even the disc film of just 20 years ago!

No, i'll never complain. I'm happy, i know that film emulsions are better than ever! Ektar 100 has the grain of the Ektar 25 of the past; Portra 400 has similar (or less) grain than the old Gold 100 (GA-6), and tabular grain B/W films are a godsend! And i share your view that there is no need to resurrect you-know-which-non-substantive-color-reversal-film.

But i was just curious, for historical reasons, on when did the regular 35mm C-41 materials made the "jump" to use disc film emulsion technology.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Nothing against 16mm and APS (I have zero opinion on either), but ULF options have still not been discussed at any length. Given the simplicity and volume associated with supplying ULF compared to perforated offerings, not to mention being the sole supplier on the global market for Colour, I find this strange...

ULF is somewhat simple, in theory... But our existing coater is relatively small and can only make film up to 8x10".
To produce ULF materials, we will need a bigger coater head - which is in the plans, but for the somewhat distant future...

This means that there we just don't have much to talk about at this point other than the simple concept that we are setting ourselves up to be able to produce a wide variety of formats from 8mm to 20x24" in a system that can allow for small batches to be produced alongside the "bread and butter" films.

 

[kb3lms]

My first digital imaging project at Kodak involved Disc film scan printing. It was designed to reduce the grain from Disc film images and it actually worked pretty well. Unfortunately, at the time, with the limited computer power available it took some pretty massive dedicated hardware to make it workable on a photofinishing scale.

Yes, the P208 project. I worked amongst people working on the project and ended up using (and then eliminating) castoff components after the project ended. Algorithmically they could do some wonderful things with disc images - I was lucky enough to get a live demo. The hardware was so large and costly that implementing it on a large scale was totally unrealistic at the time.

The Kodak 35mm Hi-Definition film that used to be available was supposed to be a 35mm cut of the Advantix film. I still have some frozen and it is pretty nice. Of course Portra and Ektar and probably even Gold 400 include all that technology.

DISC looked great on paper but not so much in practice. Not something to bring back. Although I have a very nice APS camera would really rather see manufacturers concentrate on mainstream formats.

I'm sure Ferrania's film will be years ahead of any film produced in the Disc era.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

One of the lessons here we should all remember is that it can be VERY difficult to scale up an emulsion from small research coating machines to production equipment.

Prof_Pixel is very wise...

I've been speaking very loosely about the theoretical future possibilities of FILM Ferrania, and while we are truly optimistic about the future, everything currently falls into the category of "it remains to be seen"...

 

[LJH]

ULF is somewhat simple, in theory... But our existing coater is relatively small and can only make film up to 8x10".
To produce ULF materials, we will need a bigger coater head - which is in the plans, but for the somewhat distant future...

This means that there we just don't have much to talk about at this point other than the simple concept that we are setting ourselves up to be able to produce a wide variety of formats from 8mm to 20x24" in a system that can allow for small batches to be produced alongside the "bread and butter" films.

Thanks for the update. Greatly appreciated!

Given the format restriction (8x10"), is it possible to do panoramic/banquet formats (specifically 7x17 and 8x20 inch). These are all narrower or equal to these constraints on the thinnest side.

Also, is 4x10" a possibility?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Having done what Fred stated, scaling up, I have stated that many times here. It is a real pain and expensive and sometimes it fails. Scaling is a very difficult subject in emulsion and film making.

PE

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Any plans for Ferrania black and white IR film (roll, sheet) in the future? Many people use it (including me) and the current selection is very poor.

 

[Nzoomed]

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

Same here, i completley agree, i think i asked the same thing for the same reason as you also

ULF is somewhat simple, in theory... But our existing coater is relatively small and can only make film up to 8x10".
To produce ULF materials, we will need a bigger coater head - which is in the plans, but for the somewhat distant future...

Does this mean that the maximum roll width that the LRF coater can currently handle is not alot more than 10 inches? I know the width was alot narrower than big boy's rolls, but to compare, what is the standard width of a master roll, i think its around a metre, is this correct? Photo Engineer will know this. If you are able to modify the width of the rolls, well that is great news, even if it is a way off...

Prof_Pixel is very wise...

I've been speaking very loosely about the theoretical future possibilities of FILM Ferrania, and while we are truly optimistic about the future, everything currently falls into the category of "it remains to be seen"...

This is very interesting regarding scaling up coatings in a research environment, as Photo Engineer also mentioned, that it is very hard to scale things up from the research lab to the large scale production coater to have the same quality.

Does this essentially mean that the films we see produced in the LRF could very well be better than the same films that were mass produced by the large big boy coater?

Hopefully the production scale in the LRF can meet the future demands of film, as this could very well pave the way for higher quality films than what we have seen made on industrial scale coaters, would also make R&D much easier too.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Does this mean that the maximum roll width that the LRF coater can currently handle is not alot more than 10 inches?

I'm pretty sure it's more about the coater head width and not the roll width...

Does this essentially mean that the films we see produced in the LRF could very well be better than the same films that were mass produced by the large big boy coater?

I am unqualified to answer this question... The logic sounds nice - smaller production environment = better products - but I can't assume there is a direct correlation there.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Any plans for Ferrania black and white IR film (roll, sheet) in the future? Many people use it (including me) and the current selection is very poor.

I'll keep asking...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Perhaps a better way to frame the question might be,

Did the original Ferrania ever manufacture IR film in any format? And if so, does the formula survive in the available archives as a possible future option, should market conditions ever warrant its resurrection?



Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

As size goes up and speed goes up, quality actually gets better, at least at Kodak. I cannot speak for anyone else. And the problem in scaling varies from machine to machine and from making station to making station.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

As size goes up and speed goes up, quality actually gets better, at least at Kodak. I cannot speak for anyone else. And the problem in scaling varies from machine to machine and from making station to making station.

PE

I guess its more that if a good emulsion is made and tested on a particular research coater, its hard to replicate the same results on a larger coater.
From what i understand usually the thickness of each coated layer will be different affecting picture quality.
Im sure the engineers know the differences in thickness between coaters, and there must be some sort of way to compensate for this but i wouldnt expect it would be easy, as you can see how many years it has taken to get the sharpness and fine grain that was only achieved in the lab more than 20 years ago.

I also expect this wouldmean that such formulas may give terrible results on the research coater, but would preform excellent under mass scale production.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

This is what I've been saying all along ^^

 

[Sirius Glass]

Moderators,

We should rename this thread: "Bashing APS for fun and profit"