Fujifilm Bulk Rolls

[pentaxuser]

Bulk C-41 color needs to come back. Unfortunately, it seems like it won’t happen, as no one seems interested in trying it. Even though Kodak Rochester probably has the capabilities, as they package B&W film in bulk, they probably won’t for… reasons.

I presume for the same reasons, namely, the price it would need to ask would be greater than the already high price of C41 cassettes that appears to be the case for bulk b&w Kodak films

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Bulk C-41 color needs to come back. Unfortunately, it seems like it won’t happen, as no one seems interested in trying it. Even though Kodak Rochester probably has the capabilities, as they package B&W film in bulk, they probably won’t for… reasons.

I presume for the same reasons, namely, the price it would need to ask would be greater than the already high price of C41 cassettes that appears to be the case for bulk b&w Kodak films

pentaxuser

Or because the manufacture of bulk rolls disrupts the other, more profitable and in-demand production of individual cassettes.

 

[pentaxuser]

Or because the manufacture of bulk rolls disrupts the other, more profitable and in-demand production of individual cassettes.

Matt, I had thought that the film is the same so surely its not the manufacture of it that allegedly causes the price premium charged for bulk rolls? So if it's the opportunity cost of making bulk rolls that is the problem then does that mean that despite the increased price of bulk rolls, Kodak is still not charging enough to give it the same profit as it gets from cassettes? If so then in the quest for maximum profit I wonder why Kodak has not stopped offering bulk rolls completely?

Is this a sign of Kodak being philanthropic towards those whom it recognises "need" bulk rolls and presumably might withdraw their support from Kodak altogether should it cease any offer of bulk rolls? If so might not the same consideration be extended to those desiring/ needing C41 bulk rolls as well?

I just have difficulties finding reasons for not offering bulk C41 rolls if it offers, albeit at a premium, bulk b&w rolls There may be a reason or reasons to reconcile all of the above questions I have asked but I cannot think of what that might be

I have every confidence that you will be able to supply an answer. I look forward to it

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Making big master rolls of uncut, unperforated, un-confectioned/unfinished films is just a part of "manufacturing" films.
All the rest of the manufacturing steps are complex and expensive and either involve:
1) specialized, high volume equipment with defined and limited throughput capacities; or
2) a large amount of slow and expensive manual labour; or
3) some combination of the two.
When I refer to "manufacture" of film, I'm including the entire process.
And if, as I understand it, the manufacture of bulk rolls takes staff and other resources away from the manufacture of other products, there is a real cost to doing so.

 

[MCB18]

My thoughts on the matter are, that they already do it with B&W film, so the production process is already well established. Both color and B&W film are panchromatic, so it’s not like the darkroom would need to be any darker…

I honestly believe that if a costumer wanted bulk C-41, they would be able to make it. Not a customer like you or me, you would need to probably invest in a couple master rolls to get the process going. But, if someone was willing to put in the (admittedly sizeable) investment, I don’t see why Kodak wouldn’t be able to do it.

For instance, let’s say CineStill has been getting a lot of questions about bulk 800T. Purely hypothetical, I know. The folks that use Cinestill are not the crowd that care about the savings of bulk loading. And, it’s entirely likely that the finishing is done by another company. But, let’s just go with it. I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

CineStill: We have gotten a lot of interest in 100 foot bulk loads of 800T. We would like to see if you can manufacture this product.
Kodak: It may be possible to manufacture bulk rolls of 800T. If you are willing to finance $XX,XXX for a pilot run, we can begin the process of testing equipment in order to start mass production.

Anyway, just my $0.02. Feel free to disagree.

 

[MattKing]

The current equipment and system for 100 foot loads is a small remnant of that which was set up to supply the school photography market. Individual, commercial customers who once each year or season would buy multiple 100 foot rolls to fit in cameras with magazines designed to take 100 foot rolls.
There were huge economies of scale inherent in such large orders that made diversion of the necessary resources practical and economic.
That market waned and most of the supporting infrastructure was discarded. In the meantime the equipment and systems designed for individual cassettes were modernized, mechanized and made more efficient in order to serve - at its height in the 1990s -the demand for Kodacolor output of approximately 3.4 million individual film spools per day.
When the rapid downsizing of all the manufacturing resources was commenced, a lot was discarded. The 100 foot bulk load market was relatively tiny, and very little capacity remains.

 

[MCB18]

The current equipment and system for 100 foot loads is a small remnant of that which was set up to supply the school photography market. Individual, commercial customers who once each year or season would buy multiple 100 foot rolls to fit in cameras with magazines designed to take 100 foot rolls.
There were huge economies of scale inherent in such large orders that made diversion of the necessary resources practical and economic.
That market waned and most of the supporting infrastructure was discarded. In the meantime the equipment and systems designed for individual cassettes were modernized, mechanized and made more efficient in order to serve - at its height in the 1990s -the demand for Kodacolor output of approximately 3.4 million individual film spools per day.
When the rapid downsizing of all the manufacturing resources was commenced, a lot was discarded. The 100 foot bulk load market was relatively tiny, and very little capacity remains.

I may be completely wrong, but I believe that you are thinking of 70mm film.

From previous research into the subject, a very small number of cameras could take 100 ft loads of 35mm film. Most of these were meant for traffic surveillance, taking a picture every 15 minutes or so, that way you only needed to replace the film every few days instead of every 12 hours. The other (much more rare) use was in areal photography, which the Nikon F2 750 exposure back was developed for. But again, larger formats such as 70mm were much more common, and very few 750 exposure units were ever sold.

From what I can tell, most (if not all) high volume school photography was done with 70mm film, as it was much larger and easier to touch up. High volume 35mm setups do seem to have existed in some form earlier, but I can only find passing references to them, and cannot find any official literature showing that they were ever sold on the open market.

I did find mentions of 127-size roll cameras, that take 100 ft rolls of 46mm film, an odd format for sure. However, again, I can’t find any specific models that used this film (although film for them occasionally pops up online, so they must have been used somewhat regularly).

Again, could be completely wrong, but I’m just letting you know what I’ve found in researching previously.

 

[ic-racer]

I never used Fuji film because it was not available in bulk rolls. I guess it still isn't.

 

[MattKing]

I may be completely wrong, but I believe that you are thinking of 70mm film.

Nope. And my information source is current, and has impeccable credentials .
That source doubts that the volumes could ever get high enough to be economically viable - partially because the film slitter that is used is by necessity different from that which is used for the rest of production. It is a much more manual legacy remnant from the days when there was high volume demand for motion picture print (ECP) film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Nope. And my information source is current, and has impeccable credentials .
That source doubts that the volumes could ever get high enough to be economically viable - partially because the film slitter that is used is by necessity different from that which is used for the rest of production. It is a much more manual legacy remnant from the days when there was high volume demand for motion picture print (ECP) film.

OK but doesn't this support the case for ceasing b&w bulk rolls as well? If it does not then what distinguishes C41 from b&w and makes bulk rolls of the latter a viable proposition?

Thanks


pentaxuser

 

[MCB18]

Nope. And my information source is current, and has impeccable credentials .
That source doubts that the volumes could ever get high enough to be economically viable - partially because the film slitter that is used is by necessity different from that which is used for the rest of production. It is a much more manual legacy remnant from the days when there was high volume demand for motion picture print (ECP) film.

I’m honestly more confused than anything now. 35mm film, even in 100 ft rolls, should be the exact same film as regular pre-packed film cassettes. You slit it and perf it the exact same, but the machine at the end rolls it up into a bulk loading core rather than into a cassette. Your saying that they need to slit the film on a different machine even though it’s the same film? That makes no sense to me.

 

[koraks]

You slit it and perf it the exact same, but the machine at the end rolls it up into a bulk loading core rather than into a cassette.

You assume that the confectioning line that turns out the 35mm 36 exp cassettes can be set to spool 100ft rolls at the flick of a switch. This is not the case. Here's why:

 

[MattKing]

I’m honestly more confused than anything now. 35mm film, even in 100 ft rolls, should be the exact same film as regular pre-packed film cassettes. You slit it and perf it the exact same, but the machine at the end rolls it up into a bulk loading core rather than into a cassette. Your saying that they need to slit the film on a different machine even though it’s the same film? That makes no sense to me.

The main production line is all one big set of interconnected machines and product delivery paths. The master roll goes in, and the slitting, perforating, edge printing and cassetting happens as part of a near continuous production line, with all parts accepting input from the previous, and handing off to the next. There is no opportunity to divert production part way through to the much more manual, much more expensive (per roll) to operate bulk roll line.
By necessity, for bulk films they use different (and much older) machinery, different people and much less automation in a different location in the plant to make bulk roll loads.
In addition, due to the modern and generally accepted accounting principles that publicly traded Eastman Kodak operates with, the bulk roll production is assigned a portion of shared costs that results, as a consequence of the relatively tiny production volumes, in a very expensive per roll "booked" cost.

 

[MattKing]

OK but doesn't this support the case for ceasing b&w bulk rolls as well? If it does not then what distinguishes C41 from b&w and makes bulk rolls of the latter a viable proposition?

Thanks


pentaxuser

Black and white film is already an expensive disruption for Eastman Kodak. The volumes are relatively tiny, and the resulting prices are therefore relatively high - both for single rolls and, to an even greater extent, bulk rolls.

 

[pentaxuser]

I’m honestly more confused than anything now. 35mm film, even in 100 ft rolls, should be the exact same film as regular pre-packed film cassettes. You slit it and perf it the exact same, but the machine at the end rolls it up into a bulk loading core rather than into a cassette. Your saying that they need to slit the film on a different machine even though it’s the same film? That makes no sense to me.

It has just been too long since the last Ilford tour in 2008 to remember how it took 35mm perforated film, cut it into 100ft rolls and then placed it into rolls but whatever it does, it does it at a cost that enables it to be sold ( presumably at a profit) for less than it sells 35mm cassettes

I cannot help feeling that it has to be a relatively simple operation by comparison to the quite highly automated machinery that churns out 35mm cassettes.

I even wonder if I cannot remember much about the bulk roll area because Ilford largely by-passed it on the tour suggesting to me there was little to see by comparison to the machinery used for 35mm cassettes which still sticks in my mind

How Kodak does bulk rolls has never been explained in any detail as far as I can recall so any compare and contrast study is impossible

Our only link to Kodak seems to be Matt who has a source with impeccable credentials. It might be nice if that source were to give details on the Kodak bulk roll process to an extent that we could then grasp exactly what has changed since it was able to produce bulk rolls cheaper than cassettes

I don't suppose that Matt's source knows what the Ilford process is by comparison but that's a guess. For all I know, knowledge of what is used for bulk rolls is more universal than I know between companies' engineers.

More knowledge of exactly what happens at both companies might dispel any doubts we have that Kodak just cannot replicate the Ilford process if it wanted to and sell more bulk rolls at a cheaper price .

It has to be several years since the original thread arose because of the shock experienced by Kodak users when bulk rolls became more expensive than cassettes. There was a deal of suspicion then that Kodak had deliberately chosen to alter the relationship between the price of bulk rolls v cassettes as a means of making bulk rolls purchase wither on the vine so to speak. That way the consumers kill the market by refusing to buy and allow Kodak to say that bulk rolls are no longer viable which of course would be true.

To be honest that has largely happened in the U.K where the price of Kodak bulk rolls are such that the market is dead. This may not be true of the U.S. - I don't know.


pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Much of the issue turns on how much of the organization's overhead costs needs to be born by each roll of bulk film produced.
It is unlikely that anyone at Eastman Kodak would know how much of those costs apply to each bulk roll produced and sold by Harman
And no-one at Eastman Kodak is likely to share here how much of those costs apply to each bulk roll produced and sold by Eastman Kodak.
I certainly don't have that information.
The information I do have tells me that the process used for bulk rolls is much slower, much more manual and much, much more expensive than the expense of making 18 135-36 rolls.

 

[Brad Deputy]

Kodak doesn't seem to have trouble producing Vision 3 in 400+ foot rolls. Too bad they can't do a run of Kodak Gold or Portra on that same production line. I know, I know, different part of the factory or impossible, but those would sell like hotcakes!

 

[MattKing]

Kodak doesn't seem to have trouble producing Vision 3 in 400+ foot rolls. Too bad they can't do a run of Kodak Gold or Portra on that same production line. I know, I know, different part of the factory or impossible, but those would sell like hotcakes!

They would have to sell it through Kodak Alaris.
And if the current equipment was used, there would be no frame numbers - keycodes instead.

 

[pentaxuser]

Much of the issue turns on how much of the organization's overhead costs needs to be born by each roll of bulk film produced.
It is unlikely that anyone at Eastman Kodak would know how much of those costs apply to each bulk roll produced and sold by Harman
And no-one at Eastman Kodak is likely to share here how much of those costs apply to each bulk roll produced and sold by Eastman Kodak.
I certainly don't have that information.
The information I do have tells me that the process used for bulk rolls is much slower, much more manual and much, much more expensive than the expense of making 18 135-36 rolls.

Isn't it the case that no-one here can compare how Ilford does it and how Kodak does it so unless we know a lot more we cannot work out what real differences are nor what the real costs are. As long as is the case then we have no way of saying that Kodak can do anything about the price of b&w bulk rolls. We are "punching the air" and will continue to do so for no return so we may as well stop

What does seem to be safe to say and nothing you have said seems to disprove this Matt, is that the logic dictates that Kodak should not be producing any bulk rolls including the current production of b&w bulk rolls

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

What does seem to be safe to say and nothing you have said seems to disprove this Matt, is that the logic dictates that Kodak should not be producing any bulk rolls including the current production of b&w bulk rolls

Yes for colour, no for B&W - for those who remain willing to pay for it.

 

[MCB18]

They would have to sell it through Kodak Alaris.
And if the current equipment was used, there would be no frame numbers - keycodes instead.

I don’t believe this is an issue, most bulk rolls have minimal (if any) markings. I know Foma certainly doesn’t. I believe that Ilford has them, however it is little more than frame numbers and “SAFTEY FILM”, not even an ISO. I don’t know if Kodak has edge markings. Honestly seems kind of pointless to me.

I do hope that bulk C-41 comes back, but until someone puts in the cash to pack an entire master roll as 100 ft loads, an unlikely prospect, I doubt it’ll happen. Maybe one day someone will make an automatic 100 foot spooler, and then you could order slit and perfed pancakes from Kodak (an option I know exists for at least some films) and go from there.

 

[cmacd123]

Bulk C-41 color needs to come back. Unfortunately, it seems like it won’t happen, as no one seems interested in trying it. Even though Kodak Rochester probably has the capabilities, as they package B&W film in bulk, they probably won’t for… reasons.

Kodak has always considered the 100ft rolls as "long rolls for special Cameras" as opposed to film you can load yourself to save money. Perhaps the only exception was the 410 roll, 27 1/2 feet of film with cut leaders and Notches every 66 1/2 inches for bulk loading 36 exposure rolls. That was listed in the catalog, (and on the film data sheets) in the 1960s but When I asked I was told that my local store would not order it. My teenage budget had me buying the 402 size and the 17 meter rolls from Ilford. (the safety pins in my sewing kit are still in a repurposed Ilford FP4 17Metre can)

the only colour still camera negative I remember was the 404 roll, which I think only came as Ektacolor Profesional Type S (C-22) 100ft wound on a 2 inch core. with KS perforations. (never saw one except as a catalog listing so I think it was frame numbered but I am not sure. the catalog also had 46mm Unperforated EPS for school Classroom set Cameras.

our normal Tri-x and Plus X was on the 401 (100ft) and 402 (50ft) rolls, with a 1 inch core and frame numbering.

 

[cmacd123]

They would have to sell it through Kodak Alaris.
And if the current equipment was used, there would be no frame numbers - keycodes instead.

the Movie Negative does come from a different section, and they now use the "Heart" perforators that "smarter every day showed. If you look closely at his examonation of the Heart units on the work bench one was set up for BH perfs and one for KS perfs. they operator told him that the machine is told by the network what markings to put on the film.

KeyKode is used on movie Negative and on some of the intermediate films. the print film would just have the name and a date code every 18 inches. (no doubt still in Magenta to avoid interference with the now defunt SONY SDDS digital sound track.)

the Bulk still rolls are done on what is probably a legacy unit. which may still use the older perforators at 100 ft a minute. that setup does still put the 44 down to 0 frame numbers on the film. and unlike the movie machines winds the film on a 1 inch core with a square hole. Most of the movie film comes on a 2 or 3 inch core with a a keyed 1 inch hole. {I just checked the latest Movie Cataloge and they no longer list any 35mm on a 100ft Camera spool, although many of the camera films are available on 100ft spools in 16mm}

it was not 100% clear if the cassette machine they showed was using perforated or Non Perforated feed rolls. although they did say it put the edge printing on as part of the loading process. if you were to put a stop watch on that video, you would proably find that they can crank out 18 rolls in the time that an old style perforator could punch the KS perfs in a 100 ft of Bulk film.

 

[MattKing]

What Charles said, although for context it is probably important to understand that the film visible in the "Smarter Every Day" Part 3 that talks about such things as perforations was short end motion picture film. For Eastman Kodak, a short end is what is left over from a slit down master roll of movie film after it has been cut into the standard 200 foot, 400 foot and 1000 foot roll lengths - that little bit left over which is too short to make another 200 foot roll of. Those short ends are spliced together and used for machine maintenance, setup, and things like "filming" instructional videos.
They would never use short ends from still film for that purpose, because they are just too short to be practical.
And as for frame numbers, while some photographers may not care if they aren't there, most care a lot. I would suggest frame numbers are quite critical for the remaining school programs who teach film use to students - and the educational market is still a target market for bulk film sales.
The other player that shouldn't be forgotten, even if their role in the industry is now much diminished, is commercial labs. They hate film without frame numbers, although admittedly they probably dislike re-usable cassettes almost as much.
The people here on Photrio who are comfortable with bulk film and developing their colour film themselves are representative of such an infinitesimally small portion of the market that it would be strange indeed if the bigger manufacturers arranged their production to favour them, at the expense of the majority of potential users.
The only remaining small to mid-volume producer remaining is Harman/Ilford, and it is quite remarkable how flexible and adaptable they are - most likely because they are the biggest fish in a very specialized small pond.

 

[brbo]

Basically all the "funny" films that people started buying when Kodak and Fuji were unavailable don't have frame numbers. Lomo Metropolis, LomoChrome, Orwo NC500/NC400, FlicFilm... These all get developed in labs. My Noritsu (lab grade) scanner couldn't care less that they don't have any edge markings. Sure, you can't make custom profiles for them, but you can't do that even for other films like Cinestill, Adox Color Mission and many others that do have frame numbers but don't have barcode printed on the edge.