Vlad - it's the big manufacturers who can buy supplies in volume and who are necessary to keep the whole supply train alive. Small coaters are probably just buying
the leftovers of things like film base polyester or acetate, and would have to buy it
at much higher price otherwise, if they could keep it going at all. There are economies
of scale. You can't coat a quality emulsion onto just anything. Not all of us are interested in tintypes.
Oh, I completely agreee. It is what I was trying to say in fact. I believe that some entity will continue to operate some portion of the kodak film business. What that entity looks like...I obviously do not know. I can only be certain it will include lots of money and people who know what the technical difficulties are in running a coater.Originally Posted by BrianShaw
So how does the folks who "re-invented" AZO do it? Isn't reviving a paper a good analogy for reviving a film?
What is defiant about starting with b&w film? That's where most film companies started.
and FYI: the only way to make this thing marketable is to:
a - make it the best film ever.
b - make it the cheapest film ever.
c - both a & b together.
M. Smith offers a silver chloride substitute to Azo because he badly wanted it for his
own use, was willing to goes thru lots of of greuling prototyping and testing, was willing to risk serious amounts of money for little or no net profit, and ultimately has the product coated by someone else with facilities already. You can go to his site and probably read about the whole history of this product. As far as relative risk in concerned, this is a niche products with virtually no real competition at the moment.
Once one gets into basic black-and-white film, there are all kinds of options already
on the market which are well distributed. A whole different game.
Thanks for refreshing my memory... I couldn't remember his name. Who's money is he using? I doubt the pre-orders was/is enough.
The pre-order phase comes in only once you've got a viable prototype run, but have
managed enough folks to make the relatively small risk of pre-purchase and wait. In
terms of actually lauching a product, it first involves re-mortaging your house and
selling a quart of your own blood once a day for the next ten years. If you're independently wealthy that's a different story. But for most of us it would represent
serious risk. Not for the faint-hearted.
Indeed, but there would be no need to coat it onto just anything. Good acetate and polyester bases can still be found, and if I had to choose between having TMY on the same base as, say, Foma, and not having TMY at all, guess what I'd choose?
I doubt there's something magic about the base of Kodak films. What makes them so special is the emulsion. I'm sure Kodak's emulsions coated on a regular (whatever that means) acetate or polyester base would make the same extraordinary films. TXP would be an exception, its retouching base being probably the last of its kind still in existence. However, considering that most people who use TXP seem to love it for its characteristic curve, and not necessarily for its retouching properties, I'd venture to say that it would probably sell as well even if it were coated on a normal base.
Self-scanning, and reuseable. That'd be cool for a film that's also optically printable.
You can't worry yet about making the product "good" if you're going to set up your own production line. First you need to focus on making something that works, period. Getting gelatin laid down on plastic and dried, in a predictable way. After that you have the luxury of messing around with the emulsion.
All of these feature requests (straight response curve, high silver content, etc) absolutely can not happen until the production line has already been ironed out.
As for commissioning a custom emulsion from an existing producer, all I can say is "good luck."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks