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:
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
**** 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).
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
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...
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
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.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
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."
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):
According to the AskOxford 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.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
"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?
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!
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"
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?
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by Q.G.
