I was talking to someone today and mentioned that Harman was having a big announcement soon and the speculation was that it was C41 film. Turns out this person does know what is coming and is under the embargo until the announcement
However, they gave me a big smile and said "I couldn't possible say if the speculation is correct" in a way that let me know it is exactly correct. So I think we can be very sure the announcement will be a C41 film.
We have? I missed that, I thought it was the rebranded film from the "other" Ilford that was shown.We've already seen the film packaging, it is indeed color film. It's 200ISO, too.
We have? I missed that, I thought it was the rebranded film from the "other" Ilford that was shown.
On the other hand, if this is a "limited edition" and basically a work in progress, publishing specs for each run would probably be counterproductive and confusing.
Basically that’s what was stated on the film box that some of us saw before it disappeared from the internet.Are you suggesting they would change the film from batch to batch while maintaining the same release name?
If provided they will. Not sure what the value of historical records like that might be, though.The data sheets could even then serve as a record of the film's evolution.
Basically that’s what was stated on the film box that some of us saw before it disappeared from the internet.
We've already seen the film packaging, it is indeed color film. It's 200ISO, too.
It seems like it would be bad practice to change the film batch to batch while keeping the same release name. A customer could never really know what they were getting then. I can understand if they want to do the limited edition so that they can work and improve the film. But it seems like any change to the emulsion should be released as a new film then, even if only as a generation 2 or version 2, etc.
Even releasing these experimental or work in progress films seems a bit weird to me and seems to be something characteristic of the new film era. I can't imagine the major manufacturers releasing something in the "old" days that they didn't feel was a high-quality finished product. But I know, and I am sure Harman knows, that people are anxious for new films, so I can somewhat understand the incremental improvement approach, as long as they explain well from the start that that is the plan. I am still hoping that this new film is pretty good from the start. Surely, Harman would want even the first effort to be good.
What if Harman just want's to make something their customers want ?
Limited doesn't necessarily mean a partial effort.
It does seem incremental looking at the employee numbers disclosed in their accounts over the last 10 years where the number engaged in R&D has remained relatively constant around 23 employees with a slight dip to 19 or 20 in 2016 and 2017.@Lachlan Young that's an interesting theory. Given what we know now, I think Harman have been eyeballing colour for quite a while now, off and on, and apparently got serious about it maybe a hanfdul of years ago. At that point they must have had a reasonable idea about feasibility and the major hurdles.
It’s possible (likely ?) that the release name would change. From memory the inside of the box said something like this was the first new colour film made entirely from emulsion to cassette at the Harman factory, and the Phoenix name was to indicate that. For the next iteration of the film that would no longer be true so presumably they will choose a different name?It seems like it would be bad practice to change the film batch to batch while keeping the same release name.
Phoenix+ ?
It does seem incremental looking at the employee numbers disclosed in their accounts over the last 10 years where the number engaged in R&D has remained relatively constant around 23 employees with a slight dip to 19 or 20 in 2016 and 2017.
Basically that’s what was stated on the film box
If you read my post closely, what I was basically asking is how do you know that original cassettes were not reloaded the same way. I always use original cassettes when I load my Vision3 film and tape the film to the stub of original film. When I'm done shooting the film is rewound into the cassette and looks exactly like any other OEM roll of film... I doubt I'm the only one using original cassettes for loading film from bulk rolls.
So, to repeat my question, if you only give special attention to re-loadable cassettes or even straight out refuse to process them, how do you prevent folks like me* to mess up your cutter or solution tanks with all kinds of tape?
* not literally "me" as I process all my film at home
Well, it didn't outright say that there would be unannounced batch-to-batch improvements.
It seems like it would be bad practice to change the film batch to batch while keeping the same release name. A customer could never really know what they were getting then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?