PDA

View Full Version : Gevaert (Agfa) "How film is made" video of 1954



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:14 AM
Regarding wick......

Many early coaters that made paper used a brush or wick to remove excess baryta during the manufacturing process. On cold pressed papers, when coating hot emulsion, so much was absorbed by the paper that excess emulsion was "scraped away" by a brush or wick.

More commonly though for paper and film, a blade of metal was placed about 0.005" above the surface of the coating to remove any excess and to even out the thickness of the coating. This method would have been in use in the 40s. Some cases used an air knife or air brush to remove excess emulsion.

I hope this helps.

PE

PE, the discussion point is about the hand-cranked hopper / coater as visible in the beginning of the video, which depicts the situation around 1900.

Would "wick" be a correct term for the reddish flexible strip sticking out of the underside of the visible through in that fragment? Or would "brush" be a better term?:

3,09 3,12 Around 1900 Lieven Gevaert built a half automated hopper (coating machine)
3,13 3,16 Production commenced under yellow light
3,17 3,19 A piece of paper was tightened in a frame
3,19 3,22 and was hand cranked
3,23 3,25 The light sensitive emulsion flowed from a bottle into a through
3,26 3,29 to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper

Photo Engineer
01-02-2010, 09:18 AM
I cannot tell from the image. I even ran it in the larger size but it was worse.

I can say that depending on the construction of that strip it could be either a wick or a blade. One works during application (wick) and they both can work after application (wick or blade) and the wick can apply or resurface the coating. The blade can only resurface the coating. This is what my coating blades do, and what was done by Kodak in the 40s and earlier.

PE

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:21 AM
I don't "think" it might be better, I am posting here in the hope someone with real knowledge about the history of Gevaert (Agfa) could give the definite answer. Believe me, I already asked AgX, and although he has lot's of knowledge and literature about Gevaert / Agfa history, he couldn't tell me conclusively what the correct term was... :(



Good point ;), but on the other, if manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid (as in your TV show example), not to use the correct term either... ;)


Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:

No!
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.

If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.

Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".

You are then bending the narrative to mean, not what Gevart reportedly did, but to what other manufactures "generally" do.

That's not translating. That's revising.
The narrative says they used a wick (clearly audible: "wiek"), you're co-translator told you that they (said that they) used a wick.
So ... still want to revise? Or translate?
;)


(P.S.
The instances i was alluding to - of translators goofing because they don't understand what they are translating - invariably would have not gone wrong if they just had translated what was said.
But they, not understanding, try to make sense of it, turning out nonsense instead.

If they only would have enough confidence in the people whose words they are translating, and not instead try to make something else of it, something that they understand, we would have much better subtitles. ;))

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:38 AM
Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:

No!
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.

It depends on the purpose of the translation. If it merely is to convert words from one language to another, you are right, but I personally do indeed think that in this case people are probably better served with a term they can immediately understand, and thus get some insight into the working of all these wonderfully complex but unknown devices, than get confused.

I am fully aware that that is a subjective approach...


If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.

Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".

You are now blindly assuming the narration of the film is correct. It was 1954, over 50 years after these devices were used... Maybe even at Gevaert itself, they were unsure what to call this device... I do agree it is likely they used "wick", but what I actually attempt to say or ask is "is there anyone who has some historic literature to confirm the (somewhat unfamiliar but probably correct) usage of the word "wiek / wick" here..."

That is is not the same as me wanting to use the "general term"...

I "want" "scientific proof" (well, horrible term here :o)


So ... still want to revise? Or translate?
;)

I want neither, I just want confirmation of the term as used at Gevaert ;)

AgX
01-02-2010, 09:52 AM
The "last witness" died 1945.

What did not deter Gevaert people to use the term "wick" later.

Photo Engineer
01-02-2010, 10:07 AM
Terminology in the film manufacturing business is very company specific. I found that out trying to make sense out of German and Japanese comments which used different words (in translation) than we did. The equipment was also company specific!

The windmill blade example posted here earlier was quite compelling to me inferring that they meant blade, but I cannot be sure. I do know that a wick tends to leave streaks in the coating whereas a blade does not. So, at the current time, I favor the translation "wieken" blades from the windmill example just based on my own coating experience and on some old textbooks from that era.

PE

Marco B
01-02-2010, 10:27 AM
OK, based also on PE's and AgX's comments and usage of "wick", here a last attempt including an updated attached text document.

So here was my last version of the translation:

3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion flowed from a bottle into a through
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper

Now Q.G. suggested:

3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion ran out of a bottle into a little tray
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // out of which a wick protruded that spread the fluid over the paper

I noticed three small points or issues:

- Q.G. correctly replaced the "emulsion", with "fluid" in the 2nd sentence. In the Dutch transcription that I first made, I had intended to literally write down each spoken word as said. But I unintendedly replaced "fluid / vloeistof" with "emulsion / emulsie" in the 2nd sentence while typing it.

- "out of which a wick protruded"
The word protruded already includes the meaning "out of", so "from which a wick protruded" might be better?

- Q.G. replaced my "through" correctly with "little tray" (maybe better "small tray"?)


"Final" translation than:

3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion ran out of a bottle into a small tray
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // from which a wick protruded that spread the fluid over the paper

Marco

AgX
01-02-2010, 10:28 AM
It had been stated be Gevaert people that the "wiek" transferred the emulsion to the paper. Well, this still would not exclude the meaning of `blade´...
But I never came across that term in this meaning. Yes, a windmill wing is called "wiek", and it is straight today, though twisted. But this designation rather originates from its aerodynamic behaviour like a wing, which is the original meaning of "wiek". I assume the meaning as wick has evolved due to the feather's shaft capillarity..

The main difference between a through and a tray is the relative height of its sides.

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 10:32 AM
It works for me.

Marco B
01-02-2010, 10:36 AM
Yezzzz. Can't believe I just spent 3 hours on two sentences! ;):D

Photo Engineer
01-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Yezzzz. Can't believe I just spent 3 hours on two sentences! ;):D

How long do you think it took those guys to "invent" the method of spreading the emulsion evenly without streaks? Consider yourself lucky you didn't have to do that work.

:D

PE

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 11:16 AM
Well, this still would not exclude the meaning of `blade´...
But I never came across that term in this meaning. Yes, a windmill wing is called "wiek", and it is straight today, though twisted. But this designation rather originates from its aerodynamic behaviour like a wing, which is the original meaning of "wiek".

Hadn't even looked at it from that angle, but yes, i agree: it would be rather strange, unusual at best, to use the word "wiek" to mean a "blade" in a way that would make sense here.

Photo Engineer
01-02-2010, 12:27 PM
Guys, why are the windmill "blades" called "wieken" then? It may be an alternate meaning or an old meaning going back over 100 years.

PE

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 12:41 PM
That's a difficult one...

"Wiek", as in the propellor blade, has the same meaning and origin as Dutch "vleugel" (wing), from (don't ask me how) Dutch "vlerk".
So the windmill's "wieken" are "wings".

By the way, the "wieken" of a windmill are not the 'blades', but the entire thing, blade + shaft. The better English translation would be "vane", though that too does perhaps not include the shaft.

"Wiek" as in "wick" is related to Dutch "wikkelen" (English "to wind" or "wrap"), and "weven" ("to weave").

I will have to see if i can unearth an etymological dictionary, and get the proper 'derivations'.

Chazzy
01-02-2010, 01:16 PM
I think that Marco has the right idea about the meaning of the English words wick and brush. A wick is ordinarily a single strand of material and not very wide. A brush can be wider than a wick—although neither a wick or a brush would ordinarily be as wide as a roll of photographic paper in the process of being manufactured. Incidentally, specialized brushes, as used in alternative processes, can be made of cloth, so it is not an absolute requirement that the brush function like an ordinary paint brush.

Marco B
01-02-2010, 01:26 PM
It had been stated be Gevaert people that the "wiek" transferred the emulsion to the paper. Well, this still would not exclude the meaning of `blade´...

I think we can safely exclude that this particular device we see in the video, has a metal "blade", or it should be fixed at the invisible side of the "wiek", where the paper is fed in, next to the "wiek". If you look carefully, you can even see the red thing "bend" irregularly across the width of the paper being coated. A sure sign it isn't a metal blade. The, what seems to be ragged, irregular edges of the "wiek" on the paper still indicate to me it might be a brush, instead of a flexible woven cloth of some kind of material soaked with emulsion from the tray.

Maybe, if I do manage to acquire a DVD from the Instituut Beeld en Geluid, we will have high enough resolution footage to determine if it is a piece of cloth or brush pressing against the paper.

But even if it is a brush, they may still have called it a "wiek" at Gevaert... ;):D Just leaves the English translation floating... or not, if we take the more stringent route Q.G. suggests for the translation and that I adopted in the last version.

Marco B
08-09-2011, 12:33 PM
Hi all, since the Lounge thread I linked to in the first post of this thread is dead, I hereby include the link to the Gevaert video, as it is still available:

Zestig jaar Gevaert: van huisnijverheid tot wereldindustrie:
http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler.program.7082986.html

SkipA
08-09-2011, 01:11 PM
I'd love to see it. The video won't play for me. It says "Laden..." in the lower left hand corner and clicking the arrow button to make it play doesn't do anything. Maybe the server is down.

Photo Engineer
08-09-2011, 01:18 PM
I have the same problem, but I see a lot of internet and disk activity. I let it go for about 10 minutes or more.

PE

Marco B
08-09-2011, 01:19 PM
I'd love to see it. The video won't play for me. It says "Laden..." in the lower left hand corner and clicking the arrow button to make it play doesn't do anything. Maybe the server is down.


I have the same problem, but I see a lot of internet and disk activity. I let it go for about 10 minutes or more.

PE

Here is another link to the Gevaert video, where you can watch it in Windows Media, or Real player format:
(Please note this link will resize your browser window to a smaller format to view the video, this is normal, enlarge with the maximize button if needed)
Other link to Gevaert video (http://reload1.geschiedenis.vpro.nl/themasites/mediaplayer/index.jsp?media=36423447&refernr=36423167&portalnr=4158511&hostname=geschiedenis&mediatype=video&portalid=geschiedenis)

However, there may be to many APUGers trying to access it at the same time ;) Try it a little later. Both links are to some Dutch TV channel servers. They shouldn't be to bad, but they aren't YouTube either...

PE:
You already watched this one, see your own previous posts in this re-activated old thread...

Marco