Fifty one year old Kodak documentary

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks Denise. Of course in reply I would have to comment on what a wonderful photographer you are. I urge you all to visit her web site and look at her beautiful photos.

And she makes a pretty good emulsion herself. Good work Denise.

PE

[Marco B]

I would be more than happy to host the English version on The Light Farm.

Thanks for the offer Denise. Ray Rogers, as he posted before in the thread, is going to do the English language correction (which is necessary... AgX already pointed out errors). As soon as I receive his corrections, I will update the narration files here. Now we only still need someone to do the video-editing (at least if Frank is still willing to keep his offer, I only spoke him once last week, but will contact him next week). Anyone that could do the video-editing?

Besides being fascinating and fun to watch, it apparently can't be taken as historically accurate.

Denise, before you take this film as not completely historically accurate (and of course PE is generally a prime source on these subjects, but even his memory might fail at times), you should also take into account other remarks, like the one from John Shriver, that looks quite significant to me too in this respect:

The film being spooled is Verichrome Pan. So this movie has to be made after the introduction of Verichrome Pan in 1957. Also, the emulsion of the film being loaded is grey, if it were Verichrome (ortho), it would be a bright magenta color.

So perhaps Kodak chose to use an absolutely obsolete coating machine for the part of the film that was "sensitive" to competitors. Or maybe they used more obsolete technology for Verichrome Pan, and saved the newer coating machines for the professional films? Or, since Verichrome Pan was by far the most popular film in 1957, they were using both old and new machines to make it, just for capacity reasons.

Interesting that the spooling machine is spooling either 620 or 616 size film. I suppose it would be easy to tell from the pattern of frame numbering.

His remark fits the 1958 copyright mark, which is later than PE dated it.

Marco

[Photo Engineer]

John's point is well taken. I would suspect that Kodak used an obsolte machine for the photography rather than disrupt an actual production line for filming. It might have been a shot of a machine just before disassembly for scrap as far as we can tell, or it might have been in use to meet production quotas when sales were high.

That type of trough coater is not known for uniformity unless used with a doctor blade to remove excess, and I did not see one in use in the film. The support just rose out of the trough with emulsion on it.

I have to agree that it is Verichrome pan, but I also believe that someone else has suggested a tag date on the coating ticket. It could be that this was preproduction testing which could have been a year or two in advance of actual production.

Who knows at this late date?

PE

[Ray Rogers]

I have to agree that it is Verichrome pan, but I also believe that someone else has suggested a tag date on the coating ticket.

I should point out that my current opinion on the coating ticket date is 6/3/57
I have images of presumably this same area (confirmed at least for certain sections anyway) from ca 1967; there are changes, but not drastic ones; Combined with even earlier images, they depict changes in the KBr and AgNO3 kettles, the addition pipes, the devices in/on the walls etc.; pictures from the 80's show a much more busy environment.

Ray

[Ray Rogers]

Now we only still need someone to do the video-editing

I would like to give it a try, as long as I have the option to pull out if I get in over my head

[Photo Engineer]

This photo is a repost from 1957. It shows the lack of control in making at that time. I would guess that the photo was taken a few years earlier.

By the late 60s, this was pretty much automated.

This looks like a pilot lab scale, and as such is pretty primitive for the 60s, as it was totally automated and run using a Taylor process control computer using 2 rooms, one for the system and one for making. There was a third room for mixing.

PE

[Ray Rogers]

I would guess that the photo was taken a few years earlier. By the late 60s, this was pretty much automated.

I would place it late 40's to 50s.
Images from late the 60s show sophstication but still not much automation.

[Ray Rogers]

1.
English language correction....

2.
Denise, before you take this film as not completely historically accurate

1.
I am stuck.
There are several referances to something that perhaps I was unaware of... can someone bring me up to speed?

It seems that the narrator says that film (or the backing paper) is in someway "beveled"... at first I thought they were talking about the flange on the ends of the spool, but now I am not so sure.

0.32 0.42 "The yellow backing paper protects the film and the sides REBATES? have been beveled BEVELLED, thereby pushing PRESSING [the film] against the film reel SPOOL FLANGES and THUS avoiding accidental exposure LIGHT LEAKEAGE."

14.40 14.47 "A second inspector checks the sides REBATES? of the film...."

15.03 15.10 "The paper backing is cut in strips and THE SIDES /REBATES beveled BEVELLED, so as to have the film being pushed SO THAT THEY PRESS TIGHTLY against the reels and flanges REEL FLANGES [to avoid exposure]."

Is there something to this?
Do we need a new translation?

2.
True. However, one shiner is where the narrator seems to imply that the red colored liquid is KBr.
PE has speculated it might be a solution of a rhodium compound, and while this might be plausable, I wonder
a. if that quantity looks right for that amount of emulsion (What 1000 L?)
b. I think that stuff is very expensive... too much to be mixing in that volume for one weeks work...
c. there are 3 colored solutions visable.
red, green, and yellowish brown.

Could the first two not possibly be dyes?

If the dye were one used in relatively high concentrations, the amount shown (dry... being weighed) might make sense.

I just can't see that much rhodium being used for a weeks production.

On the other hand... it could all be mock... for show and jell only.

[Marco B]

1.
I am stuck.
There are several references to something that perhaps I was unaware of... can someone bring me up to speed?

It seems that the narrator says that film (or the backing paper) is in someway "beveled"... at first I thought they were talking about the flange on the ends of the spool, but now I am not so sure.

Ray, the narrator is saying, as you interpreted correctly from my translation, that the PAPER BACKING, not the film, is beveled.

0.32 0.42 "The yellow backing paper protects the film and the sides REBATES? have been beveled BEVELLED, thereby pushing PRESSING [the film] against the film reel SPOOL FLANGES and THUS avoiding accidental exposure LIGHT LEAKEAGE."

14.40 14.47 "A second inspector checks the sides REBATES? of the film...."

15.03 15.10 "The paper backing is cut in strips and THE SIDES /REBATES beveled BEVELLED, so as to have the film being pushed SO THAT THEY PRESS TIGHTLY against the reels and flanges REEL FLANGES [to avoid exposure]."

Is there something to this?
Do we need a new translation?.

No, you don't I think. If my English dictionary is not incorrect (which says "beveled" means "cut at an angle"), than this is 100% sure what the narrator says. Funny, I now noticed beveled can be written both with single, and with double "L", at least according to this online dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bevelled

Also forget the word "rebate", that is incorrect. (these were among the corrections I received from another APUG member, who did a good job, but I didn't check all of it, and he wasn't English either, like me)

My suggestion for these sections:

0.32 0.42 "The sides of the yellow backing paper that protects the film have been beveled, thereby pressing the film against the film spool flanges and thus avoiding light leakage."

14.40 14.47 "A second inspector checks the sides of the film...."

15.03 15.10 "The paper backing is cut in strips and the sides are beveled, so that they press tightly against the reel's flanges to avoid exposure."

True. However, one shiner is where the narrator seems to imply that the red colored liquid is KBr.

Ray, I am Dutch, the narrator is DEFINITELY saying the red solution is KBr, nothing else. So unless that is blatantly wrong, it should be translated as such. Of course the fact he only talks about KBr, by itself doesn't exclude any other chemical components in the solution that may give it it's reddish color.

[Ray Rogers]

1."...the PAPER BACKING is beveled."

0.32 0.42 "The sides of the yellow backing paper that protects the film have been beveled, thereby pressing the film against the film spool flanges and thus avoiding light leakage."

14.40 14.47 "A second inspector checks the sides of the film...."

15.03 15.10 "The paper backing is cut in strips and the sides are beveled, so that they press tightly against the reel's flanges to avoid exposure."

2a.
Ray, I am Dutch, the narrator is DEFINITELY saying the red solution is KBr, nothing else. So unless that is blatantly wrong, it should be translated as such.

2b.
Of course the fact he only talks about KBr, by itself doesn't exclude any other chemical components in the solution that may give it it's reddish color.

OK, I think you may have misunderstood what I really meant... I understand what is being said/translated... it is just that I have never seen what is being described... Are the paper backing on these films beveled in such a way that the film is "thereby pressing the film against the film spool flanges and thus avoiding light leakage."?

Actually, I think what is meant is that the paper backing is trimmed to be less wide at the end... and that this paper backing is wrapped around the film, keeping it light tight.

The image I first had may have come from translating whatever the dutch word for "end" is - as "side" instead of "end".

Is that a possibility?
As it reads now with "sides" it would seem to mean that the paper is wider than the film or something that does not make much sense to me:

"The sides of the yellow backing paper that protects the film have been beveled"

or

"The ends of the yellow backing paper that protects the film have been beveled"

I am pretty sure that they are trying to say that the ends of the paper is tapered, rather than the sides are beveled.

2
Well
KBr is not red.
The dry, red material being made into a solution before the emulsification is not KBr
and when they add the KBR latter on, it is not red either.

I agree we should translate it as it is, perhaps with an appropriate footnote.

However, we may need to consider the possibility that either the original (English) version or the Dutch translation is in error.