Orwo colour film teaser?

[flavio81]

There's only one who can confirm our suspicions and reveal the mystery. A special agent with insider knowledge...

@Henning Serger

Henning, unser Beste Freund, wo bist du?

 

[mshchem]

Hopefully this is an attempt to actually coat new film.

 

[faberryman]

As usual, nobody knows nothin' because the manufacturer wants to play hide the ball. The old tease and reveal approach to marketing. Isn't that a little worn out by now?

 

[flavio81]

I found this on the net... so it was a TUNGSTEN film...

If Orwo NC500 is daylight balanced then we cannot say it's just the same formula as XT320.

 

[AgX]

Well, it was your idea...

One may also question why a formula as a whole, several decades old, should be revived with the supply situation of certain emulsion elements likely changed meanwhile.

That "Orwo" (whoever that is today) the last months and still today emphasized their Wolfen roots now suddenly refer to a belgian product is weird.

But so far their whole communication is weird (to me). But as said elsewhere before this seems the manner of the photochemical industry as such at the moment, maybe added by the special situation in this case.

 

[AgX]

But as indicated above, why can't we be just happy that seemingly something is happening and just wait for samples to be available?

And start bickering then (if needed).

Is it us, these strange social media statements, both, the pandemic... ?

 

[Paul Howell]

"proudly still produced in Bitterfeld-Wolfen on the original site"

This either means,

-) they miraculously got a production coating machine

-) they use their lab coater

Someone in Germany may want to take a field trip and knock on their door to see what is up.

 

[flavio81]

"proudly still produced in Bitterfeld-Wolfen on the original site"

This either means,

-) they miraculously got a production coating machine

-) they use their lab coater

Someone in Germany may want to take a field trip and knock on their door to see what is up.

Maybe that's why it's a "limited edition"

 

[pentaxuser]

Mods, as we now know, it was not a film teaser and there is actually a film about which we rightly ask question, isn't there a case for combining the threads so that we gather all views and questions under one banner?

pentaxuser

 

[Arcadia4]

Out of Africa was shot on;
AGFA-XT320
(& Eastman Color Negative II 100T 5247/7247 Film)

Out of Africa (1985)

Out of Africa (1985) tech specs : shot on ARRIFLEX 35 BL Camera and Zeiss Super Speed Lenses - Directed by Sydney Pollack with Cinematography by David Watkin - The Motion Picture & Television Technical Database

shotonwhat.com

Presumably that explains the 500 iso in c41.

 

[MattKing]

Two threads merged into one, and posts from a black and white film moved here too.
Hope the result isn't any more incoherent than the media campaign it references .

 

[cmacd123]

XT320 was actually a "nice" film. I belive that was the stock used in 16mm for this famous Video..

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

"bruunke: Is this an old master roll? Or was the emulsion recently made, coated and cut?

orwofilm: @bruunke This is brand new!"

 

[koraks]

Which would mean that the analog path is left and this film being aimed as being a still film for scanning

I would consider it as such yes, but they do position it as a kind of special effects film. The color balance of the examples screams ECN2 posing as C41 to me. Seems to fit nicely in the Lomo niche, but I hope they'll also launch a proper C41 product some day.
The notion that they are actually seeming to get out there and put a new film on the market is very hopeful indeed. Even if it's spun on a lab coater, it's only a super sized test batch, takes mythical amounts of manual labor to confection and is a 1960s formula recreated today instead of the kind of contemporary product the other 1.5 companies are making (Fuji being the .5 because I doubt much C41 manufacturing is occurring there anymore).

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder what it will sell at? As long as it's cheaper to produce that Kodak C41 and it looks "different" it would seem to be a win win for ORWO, given the new colour film buying public, as it is not likely to be sold for much if any less than Kodak films or I would not have thought so

Do our suspicions indicate that the cost of making this film is likely to be less than Kodak C41? I don't know enough to even hazard a guess but my instinct says it may be cheaper to make

I had a look at the XT320 video and as it was in a studio it was difficult to detect the famous greens, desaturated shadows and enhanced grain but then again I am not sure what famous greens, desaturated shadows and enhanced grain consists of. Anyone any ideas?

Enhanced grain sounds like more/bigger grain as in say Rodinal. Is this really an asset in a colour film or making a the famous sow's ear sound like its a silk purse?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Nitroplait]

Isn't it about time we conclude that:

1. Nobody will make better color film than Kodak or Fuji.
2. Any color film from other producers will be either worse or more expensive, and likely both (but never better).
3. Regardless, we will speculate to no end and make repetitive emotional threads.

??

 

[koraks]

Do our suspicions indicate that the cost of making this film is likely to be less than Kodak C41?

I would expect the opposite.

 

[MattKing]

Do our suspicions indicate that the cost of making this film is likely to be less than Kodak C41? I don't know enough to even hazard a guess but my instinct says it may be cheaper to make

I don't think anyone is likely to be able to make film any less expensively than Eastman Kodak.
It isn't the actual making of the film that costs so much, if one has the equipment and potential economies of scale that makes it so expensive per roll.
It is all the rest of the costs that takes it from coated film stock on master rolls to being a box on your retailer's shelves that costs.

 

[pentaxuser]

Nitroplait If this was a reply to me may I say that on your point 1 I'd agree but would add the words "so far" and for a lot of others the answer is that it all depends on their taste

Your point 2: More expensive does not necessarily follow. Despite the situation as we now know it, colour films were not always so expensive. Film prices are what the market will bear and if they are ever reduced or there is competition for sales then the cheaper to produce films may have the edge. It isn't clear to me that the films with the edge on cost is necessarily Kodak or Fuji

Your point 3. Speculation is what most forums do. Sometimes it can be well informed speculation that prompts productive discussion

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

The detective work suggesting something similar to the old Agfa XT320 sounds plausible. If they really are making a remjet-free film which has effective speed of 500 when processed in C41, I might be up for that. But count me among those who is puzzled by the wording used and the sudden appearance of lots of different film options under the ORWO banner.

I mean, if it's all legit.....this is great news. I'm still hoping for std 8mm film from them....but a high speed C41 film is something I'm very interested in. Push it a stop and it's potentially a gig film.

 

[flavio81]

I don't think anyone is likely to be able to make film any less expensively than Eastman Kodak.

How quickly the view on Kodak changes...

Five, or eight, or ten years ago (when I used to browse APUG without an account) everybody said that Kodak had higher costs than other manufacturers since their operations scale was far bigger than the reduced demand. And that a manufacturer that wanted to make film economically would need to have a small-scale operation, not the huge coaters and machines that Kodak had.

This view was supported, if I recall correctly, by Kodak insiders like Photo Engineer.

The whole point of, for example, the Ferrania project, was to dramatically scale-down the operations of a big factory to be able to make film with reasonable costs.

So now I don't understand why everybody is assuming Kodak is the manufacturer that would have the least cost. Maybe yes, for a film in high demand like ColorPlus 200. But for any other film that has not such a massive demand? I'm not so sure.

 

[AgX]

Back then every manufacturer had too high production cost, due to technical losses which were then to be spread over very low production volume.

By shrinking production facilities, these losses could be reduced in absolute terms.
But then the ratio of personnel cost to production volume is still worse than in the heydays.

And with a reduced production volume the price per part of anything bought (think of custom made sensitizer) rises.

 

[Ten301]

The colors do look a bit ‘off’ in the samples they supply. It would be interesting to expose a few rolls @ EI 320 or 250 and process in ECN-2, of course skipping remjet removal. My hunch is the film would be gorgeous.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think anyone is likely to be able to make film any less expensively than Eastman Kodak.

So now I don't understand why everybody is assuming Kodak is the manufacturer that would have the least cost.

We may be interpreting the meaning of a term differently - to "make film".
I differentiate between the costs involved in creating the master rolls of photographic film - what I would refer to as "making film" - and the total costs involved in getting a roll of boxed films on to the retailer's shelves, including making the film, confectioning/converting it and distributing it to the retailer.
The part that I refer to as "making the film" is the part where Eastman Kodak has the best potential economies of scale. Those costs are overwhelmed by the rest of the costs, which themselves are the limiting factors.
Eastman Kodak has improved its ability to make smaller runs. The rest of the chain is the problem.

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak did have issues with scale when they had a number of facilities and demand was shirking, now that Kodak is down to just one plant and demand is increasing as long as Kodak can it's production lining line running 24/7 it will have an advantage over the smaller producers. With Fuji selling rebranding Kodak 200 and 400 35mm it means that Kodak can keep it's coating line busy. Still, due to Kodak's scale what they make as to be in quantity. Wonder if Kodak "lab coater" is not busy why they could not coat a limited run of older films, like Panatomic X or Plus X? Sell has a higher cost to people who would be willing to may a higher price?