PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3

Marco B
12-27-2009, 01:31 PM
Hi all,

Sorry for cross posting, but since AgX posted this link in the Lounge, and threads there don't show up on APUGs main opening screen, I thought I would repost here as I think many of you would like to see this as well.

It is a Dutch film documentary about the Gevaert (later Agfa-Gevaert) plant in Belgium in 1954. Narration in Dutch, no subtitles, but see the comments in the other APUG thread by me:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum47/69867-gevaert-film-manufacture-1954-a.html

Many, many similarities with the Kodak "How film is made" doc of 1958...

But this also shows some paper coating...

Marco

Marco B
12-27-2009, 03:39 PM
**** One BIG tip. To get the video running, click the "OPSLAAN" button when you arrive on the VPRO broadcasting channel site, as linked in AgXs first post in the other thread. If you don't, the video won't display ****

The "opslaan" button ("save" in English), sets the players setting (e.g. internet connection speed).

Emulsion
12-27-2009, 03:54 PM
Thanks Marco (and AgX), great film!

Marco B
12-30-2009, 05:09 PM
Hi all,

OK, so I have done it again, with a bit of help of AgX :)

Here is the full translation of the Gevaert film's Dutch narration in English

There may be a future subtitled version of the video down the line. I contacted the public broadcasting company hosting the current video, but more importantly also the national archive for this material (Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid) here in the Netherlands, and the latter party has the video available for sale on DVD for a reasonable price, but there may be additional licensing costs involved in making it publicly available on the internet, in which case I am not going to do it. It will depend, it is a 50 years old company video, so maybe there aren't actually licensing costs...

Enjoy!

Marco

Marco B
01-02-2010, 04:56 AM
A minor correction to the translation:

Replaced

3,26 3,29 in which a blade was inserted, spreading the emulsion over the paper

with:

3,26 3,29 to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper

As there is no modern type "coating blade" visible, but it appears some kind of brush. Actually the Dutch narration here is inconclusive, and uses a very unusual word in the context of the footage displayed.

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 08:36 AM
The literal translation of the Dutch word used in the narration ("wiek", not a word that leaves that much room for misinterpretation) in English is "wick".

I think it's the most accurate translation as well. The fluid soaks through the wick, and is deposited on the paper as it passes below it.

So it would be:
"The light sensitive emulsion ran out of a bottle into a little tray, out of which a wick protruded that spread the fluid over the paper."

Marco B
01-02-2010, 08:59 AM
The literal translation of the Dutch word used in the narration ("wiek", not a word that leaves that much room for misinterpretation) in English is "wick".

I don't think what you are saying is correct.

"Wiek" in Dutch means the "wings" of a windmill, not some type of brush, as seams to be visible in the video...

This is a windmill with "wieken" (plural):

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/4/4/3/7/dn1_0173_16.jpg

According to the AskOxford (http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk) online dictionary, "wick" means:

- noun: a strip of porous material up which liquid fuel is drawn by capillary action to the flame in a candle, lamp, or lighter. 2 Medicine a gauze strip inserted in a wound to drain it.

- verb: absorb or draw off (liquid) by capillary action.

Of course, the capillary action described IS part of the equation of the functioning of the brush that lays down the emulsion, but I still find the "wick" translation difficult to accept, as people will associate it with candles or oil lamps, not a device for spreading emulsion over paper. In addition, the capillary action of a wick is not necessarily the same as from a brush. A brush "absorbs" a liquid through capillary action in the small spaces between its hairs, whereas a wick more absorbs the liquid into the fibres itself. In addition, a wick is not from hair (artificial or animal) as brushes, but often cotton.

Unless a native English speaker, preferably with knowledge of (the liturature related to) these historic "hoppers" or manual coating machines can confirm that "wick" IS the correct name for the device, I will not change it.

Marco

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:06 AM
I don't think what you are saying is correct.

"Wiek" in Dutch means the "wings" of a windmill, not some type of brush, as seams to be visible in the video...

[...]

Hi Marco,

Dutch is my mother tongue as well.

And a "wiek", as used here, is the thing you find in candles or in oil lamps. Not just a propeller blade. The similarity between the Dutch and English words too holds a clue.
It is perhaps more common in Zuid-Nederlands, but still a proper and correct Dutch word, meaning what the film suggests it means: a wick.

So the "wick" translation is indeed the correct one.

Unless you think that they should have used a brush instead of what the man said they used, a wick.
But then you wouldn't be providing a translation anymore, would you?
;)

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:10 AM
The question we need to answer, which is about impossible based on the footage alone: is the flexible red colored object below the through made of individual "hairs" (in which case the brush translation is correct), or is it a flexible woven piece of cotton(?) cloth, in which case the "wick" might be more correct.

Even so, someone with detailed knowledge of the literature of the time, is highly welcome to comment here!

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:13 AM
Sorry to disagree, Marco, but if you are trying to translate (!) what we hear, you should not be looking to "improve" or "correct" the narrative, but just translate what is said.
And the man clearly said "wiek", not "borstel", or "blad". But "wiek".
A correct Dutch word, meaning something that soaks up and passes on fluids, as such fully consistent with what he is describing.
So where's the problem?

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:18 AM
Hi Marco,

Dutch is my mother tongue as well.
And a "wiek", as used here, is the thing you find in candles or in oil lamps. Not just a propeller blade. The similarity between the Dutch and English words too holds a clue.
It is perhaps more common in Zuid-Nederlands, but still a proper and correct Dutch word.

Well, although I was born in the south of the Netherlands (Boxtel), I left it when I was six. But I have never before heard a "lont" (wick) being referred to as a "wiek"...

The "VanDale" Dutch online dictionary, doesn't give this meaning either. So although it may well be valid dialect, it hasn't made it to "official" Dutch ;)

I do get hits for wiek / lont in Google though, referring to "wiek" as in the sense of "wick"

Still, I think what we need is a definitive answer from a native English speaker...

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Now that you know that it is a Dutch word meaning what it does?
Knowing that that meaning is fully consistent with what we see happening?
Knowing about the similarity between "wiek" and "wick", thus having etymology confirm it?
And knowing (most important) that the man in the film clearly said "wiek"?

You're being too cautious, really! ;)

P.S.
Oh, and knowing that a Zuid-Nederlander recognizes and understands the word without having to look it up? ;)

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:31 AM
Now that you know that it is a Dutch word meaning what it does?
Knowing that that meaning is fully consistent with what we see happening?
Knowing about the similarity between "wiek" and "wick", thus having etymology confirm it?
And knowing (most important) that the man in the film clearly said "wiek"?

You're being too cautious, really! ;)

I definitely appreciate you pointing out the - to me - unknown usage of the word "wiek" in Dutch and its etymological similarity to the English word "wick"

But sometimes direct, literal, translations are just plain wrong...

Not because the meanings are not the same (as you have shown is not the case here), but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it. That term may not be wick here, and if not, I think we should translate it to what the native English speakers would use here, instead of the more literal translation.

Again, I do highly appreciate your input ;), but we need a final answer from a native speaker

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:37 AM
I definitely appreciate you pointing out the - to me - unknown usage of the word "wiek" and its etymoligical similarity to "wick"

But sometimes direct, literal, translations are just plain wrong...

Not because the meanings are not the same (as you have shown is not the case here),

I suspect there is a "not" too many in the "as you have shown [etc.]".
But to be clear: if anything, i have shown the opposite, that the meaning is indeed exactly the same.


but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it. That term may not be wick here, and if not, I think we should translate it to what the native English speakers would use here, instead of the more literal translation.

That goes against any translation rules (it's not about what someone else might use, but what the original says), but if you think it better.
It is your 'translation'. ;)


Again, I do highly appreciate your input ;), but we need a final answer from a native speaker

Of what language? ;)


P.S.

Oh, and thanks to you and AgX for translating the narrative!

Marco B
01-02-2010, 09:50 AM
That goes against any translation rules (it's not about what someone else might use, but what the original says), but if you think it better.

Is that so? My farther, who regularly had the need for some of his work being translated in another language, always told me that translators usually do "research" on existing documents to find out what is the "jargon" used in a certain work field. How else would a translator create a proper translation for less common field specific terms, not part of the day-to-day spoken "street" language?


It is your 'translation'. ;)

Yes, it's mine ;), but also a bit AgX's. Actually, it was AgX who also suggested "wick", but I rejected it :D


Oh, and thanks to you and AgX for translating the narrative!

Next time, its your turn! ;):D

Q.G.
01-02-2010, 09:59 AM
Is that so? My farther, who regularly had the need for some of his work being translated in another language, always told me that translators usually do "research" on existing documents to find out what is the "jargon" used in a certain work field. How else would a translator create a proper translation for less common field specific terms, not part of the day-to-day spoken "street" language?

It indeed is.
A translator must know the field the text he is translating is about. Else you get stupid mistakes (which we all too often see in TV subtitles, where translators clearly show they haven't the faintest idea of what the text is about).

But it is also a Deadly Sin to change things because you think it might be better.

What if they used a wick at Gevaert's and you change that to brush, because some other manufacturer never used a wick, never ever heard of a wick being used, and says that it must be brush?
You would rob the world, keeping that little bit of information from everyone, just because you think it more appropriate to use the terms someone else uses, instead of following the original.

A Deadly Sin indeed!
;)


Yes, it's mine ;), but also a bit AgX's. Actually, it was AgX who also suggested "wick", but I rejected it :D

Really?!
Well there you (as in: you) go!
:D


Next time, its your turn! ;):D

Will gladly help, if an occassion presents itself.

AgX
01-02-2010, 10:05 AM
but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it.

Marco, but the problem is that you do not know how this machine worked. Neither does the rest of us.

Marco B
01-02-2010, 10:09 AM
But it is also a Deadly Sin to change things because you think it might be better.

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 lots of knowledge and literature about Gevaert / Agfa history, he couldn't tell me conclusively what the correct term was... :(


What if they used a wick at Gevaert's and you change that to brush, because some other manufacturer never used a wick, never ever heard of a wick being used, and says that it must be brush?

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... ;)

Marco

Photo Engineer
01-02-2010, 10:11 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

Marco B
01-02-2010, 10:11 AM
Marco, but the problem is that you do not know how this machine worked. Neither does the rest of us.

Well, "here we go" :p, that is exactly what I am saying. We need someone to dig down the Gevaert history!