Ferrania is a go!

[supa8]

Interesting
and Ektachrome 64T was 11 (I think Tri-X is around 17)
http://www.visionimagelab.com.au/_liter ... CHROME_64T

So Scotch Chrome is very grainy indeed @13

[aj]

RMS nitpicking and creating an anti mood towards the unkownn coming film.

This baseless argument is serving no purpose. Just wait for the film to appear and then see the first results.

BTW
If Tri-X at 17 is much desirable then what would be wrong with others at 12 or 13?
If you want fine grain then shoot 35mm or super-16.

[supa8]

Fair enough.
I actually love the grainy look of Tri-X myself.

If you re-read my post, you will see there was no judgement passed on the Scotch Chrome.
I was merely pointing out it would be a grainy stock.
Now it is true that most people seem to fabour a fine grain colour reversal like the 100D.
To be honest, I would be happy for a new filmstock to come out one way or the other ;)

[carllooper]

There's an equation of sorts between the stock one uses and the kind of work one might create with it, where it doesn't really matter which way you fit into that equation - be it selecting a particular kind of work to suit a given stock, or selecting a particular type of stock (or set of stocks), to suit a given work.

Whatever Ferrania makes, be it the good, the bad or the ugly (apologies to Sergio Leone), there will be plenty of scope to make something of it. To make something with it. To make something that couldn't have been made without it.

Easily.

C

[Tscan]

The old VNF Ektachrome Super 8 was RMS 13 if anyone remembers that. Again, the folks at Ferrania said the first order of business was to refine the Scotchchrome. They have the will and the resources, and want to give the costumers what they want. Most people want something like 100D or close to it. Maybe they will come through sooner or later? An RMS 13 film would be nice if it was at least 200ASA tunston and partnered with a slower finer grain daylight stock.

[Will2]

The old VNF Ektachrome Super 8 was RMS 13 if anyone remembers that.

Ouch. That was one of the ugliest stocks I ever used.

[Angus]

To be fair, the problem with the VNF film was not the grain. It was the fact that it was also quite low contrast, not really intended for projection.

At least the Scotch Chrome is intended for projection and will have better colour rendition than VNF7240. I used a fair but of 7240 in super 8, though I would say it was not a nice stock in daylight it did OK in low light situations. I shot a film at night in London, and Christmas lights in Boise and they came out nice. The grain wasn't the biggest issue.

Ferrania will START with something akin to Scotch Chrome and will no doubt seek to refine the formula. There is an obvious gap in the market for a colour reversal super 8 and 16mm film. Personally I would take 25, 50 or 100ASA daylight or even a tungsten balanced film....but for simplicity they will start with something they've made before and I don't blame them. Assuming the price is significantly lower than colour reversal offered by Kahl and Wittner I will be buying it. Not lots and lots but some. Even if I buy three rolls, that's three more rolls than I bought in 2013 or 2014. From small acorns....

[Angus]

I am something of a chemist but not knowledgable about film formulations. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to start with a colour reversal daylight film and alter it to make a tungsten balanced film. But I would agree, in an ideal world we'd have a slow daylight balanced film and a high speed tungsten. That would take us back to the 1990s.

I am sure the folks at Ferrania are aware of this, but the first step is to get the 100 daylight film out there, see what people think and to improve it. What I really hope does not happen is people buying the "Scotch Chrome" in super 8 or 16mm and saying "Oh this is crap, it doesn't look as good as Kodak 100D, I am NEVER buying Ferrania products again". They are in this for the long haul, and the product will hopefully evolve over time.

[doug]

Agree with most of what's been said. It is hopefully just the beginning, especially if the Ferrania team are taking all this trouble to get the big machines going again. But we definitely do need a fine grain reversal colour film at some point. This is what most people prefer, those who are in to super-8 especially. And there is a concern as Angus says, that people will make unfair comparisons with Ektachrome 100D.
Personally, I rather liked the old VNF emulsions, as I prefer lower contrast most of the time. But as Carl touched on, it all depends on what you are making with film.
As for a slow fine-grain film, what about 10 asa ! After all, that's what the first Kodachrome filmers used in late 1930s, with slow lenses, and looking at their films now they appear mostly well exposed. They must have selected fine sunny weather most of the time, and the film would have been too good to waste. Today with fast lenses we would find it easier.

[cineandy]

After a diet of k25 then k40, 100d was a poor product (imo), 100d seems to be too over rated on this forum. The film lacked the bite and sharpness of kodachrome, even kodaks 64t gave a sharper image. I for one certainly don't miss 100d.

[doug]

After a diet of k25 then k40, 100d was a poor product (imo), 100d seems to be too over rated on this forum. The film lacked the bite and sharpness of kodachrome, even kodaks 64t gave a sharper image. I for one certainly don't miss 100d.

True, Kodachrome 40 was better resolving power, but I think 100D was/is a very nice film. It's sharper surely than 64T ?
As for my dream of 10 asa film, I realise this would cause problems with the notching for super-8. But I do pine for something really sharp again. I used to take 35mm stills on Ektachrome Duplicating film and that was 8 to 10 asa and was beautiful.

[Angus]

Kodachrome 40 had fine grain but actually wasn't sharp at all.

64T was sharp but grainy.

100D was both sharp and had low grain. But it's colours were very different to Kodachrome, it looked somehow more modern. I liked it, however.

I would actually be happy with something that performed as well as 64T, that was acceptable. Yes we have had better, but it was acceptable.

[Tscan]

I agree the VNF was not a good film in daylight, but not a bad counterpart to K40 as a tungsten film. I started experimenting with VNF filming live music here in Portland, but at 125ASA it ended up too under exposed a lot of the time. As soon as the V2 500T came out in S8 there was no looking back. I love shooting the negs and hope they stay forever. But i will also be happy to add in whatever reversals Ferrania comes out with. Now that i can scan my own negs, i will finally get around to playing with cross processing.

Angus Wrote

I am sure the folks at Ferrania are aware of this, but the first step is to get the 100 daylight film out there, see what people think and to improve it. What I really hope does not happen is people buying the "Scotch Chrome" in super 8 or 16mm and saying "Oh this is crap, it doesn't look as good as Kodak 100D, I am NEVER buying Ferrania products again". They are in this for the long haul, and the product will hopefully evolve over time.

I'm not getting my hopes up for the initial batch, but under that I think they may just surprise us with a pretty decent 100ASA film to kick things off. Because their hearts are in it. Even if it statrs out as crap, i'm sure they will work towards something better if we can support it. I will be shooting whatever they throw at me and it will be fun no matter. And think of it this hypothetical situation: If Kodak really wanted to formulate a couple of new kick ass reversal films for motion picture... could they? Of course they could. So why couldn't Ferrania? They have the equipment, the scientists, materials, and the heart for what folks like us want.

Here's a clip i posted on another thread last year, it's Built to Spill on Ektachrome VNF and TriX 160. Plus X was still 50ASA back then. This was feb 2004.
https://vimeo.com/70646413

[john59]

It would be great if the Farrania team looked in on threads like this. It would give them an insight as to what peeps are thinking and give them food for thought. I would think that they would prob not answer any Q because of the work they have to do and also I would imagine that they would not want to stir up any arguments that may arise if any. Im just glad that I myself have now got something to look forward to and my son who is very interested might have a chance to actually buy and shoot something that a year and a half ago thought he may never be able to do.

[nikonr10]

RMS nitpicking and creating an anti mood towards the unkownn coming film.

This baseless argument is serving no purpose. Just wait for the film to appear and then see the first results.

BTW
If Tri-X at 17 is much desirable then what would be wrong with others at 12 or 13?
If you want fine grain then shoot 35mm or super-16.

More I hope it's a film that we can get at a good price ? not at what wittner want for 100 d or what some now want for it on ebay ?
I am/ or was a big fan of kodak 100 D more so than k40" mind you that was so much cheaper in the day" And apart of film history , waiting for the postman then geting that film back in the mail , hope's dispair all rolled in to one , and also dealing with the disppointments of not geting the filter right .
What I like most with 100d is that you can home cook it in e6 DIY that was magic for me and still is ! and works out really cheap at the time ?

Now down to 15 cart's of kodak 100d so really waiting for Ferrania new film to help keep filmmaking alive in E6 for me ,