Fifty one year old Kodak documentary

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2009

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 · Feb 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
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 · Feb 8, 2009

Marco B said:
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 · Feb 8, 2009

Ray Rogers said:
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.

Ray Rogers said:
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."

Ray Rogers said:
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 · Feb 8, 2009

Marco B said:
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.

Marco B · Feb 8, 2009

Beveled ends of film

Ray Rogers said:
"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.

OK Ray, I now completely understand what you mean with the beveled thing, and the difference between the "end" of the paper, and the "sides". I fully agree with you that the "sides" being beveled, doesn't make a lot of sense, since the paper is just a fraction of a millimetre thick. I think you are 100% right, he's talking about the end of the paper backing. So change the texts accordingly, if you can. Actually, when I heard the Dutch text the first time, I was confused, but now also looking at the screenshot below included as attachment, I think this is what is meant. Just look at the end of the paper backing: IT IS BEVELED...

Ray Rogers said:
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.

Yeh, you may be right, but I think there is not much else we can make of this particular section. I still think it might be some other chemical or additive included that may cause the color, or, as you also suggested, they just used some shot of a chemist working with bottles with liquid, to illustrate something, while not having the KBr in it.

AgX · Feb 8, 2009

But the dutch narration definetely refers to the long sides/rebates and the film shows an arrow gliding along those sides.
It is further statet that those bevelled sides press firmly against the flanges of the spool.

Marco B · Feb 8, 2009

Yeh, you are right about the Dutch narration and the arrow animation stuff, that still is confusing, but unless someone else steps in with a good suggestion or knowledge of how these films were produced at the time, the end being beveled is more logical.

Anyone else with a good suggestion???

And we still need someone with good video-editing experience, that could do the subtitles stuff.

Ray Rogers · Feb 8, 2009

AgX said:
But the dutch narration definetely refers to the long sides/rebates and the film shows an arrow gliding along those sides.
It is further statet that those bevelled sides press firmly against the flanges of the spool.

And that is why I said I was stuck, since I know of no such animal. The film I use IS NOT like that. At first, I though they were talking about the thin black edgeing along both sides that runs the length of the film. But how functional is that!

BTW, What film is this? 120? Did someone mention 6xx film?

Ray

Ray Rogers · Feb 8, 2009

Marco B said:
Actually, when I heard the Dutch text the first time, I was confused, but now also looking at the screenshot below included as attachment, I think this is what is meant. Just look at the end of the paper backing: IT IS BEVELED...

How did I miss this shot? It is right there in plain English!
If I had seen that the first time, we could have avoided all this confusion!

Ray

Marco B · Feb 8, 2009

John Shriver said:

"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."

Ray, maybe we should solve this by sticking to the original suggestions of the sides of the film being beveled, and as you, Denise and PE suggested, add a list of remarks about confusing / conflicting aspects in the film

That list might include:

- Film type being made / spooled
- Sides or end of paper backing being beveled
- KBr not being a red solution
- Type of machinery outdated for late '50s

When Denise is going to host this on her website, these remarks might be added on the webpage as clarification / cautionary warnings.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Feb 8, 2009

It was my understanding that the backing paper is indeed thinner (thicker? It's midnight here) at the edges, even fractionally, to improve light tightness. This is part of what makes it such a specialist thing to manufacture, and such a big part of the cost of 120 format. I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to pitch in, but a "bevel" at the edges isn't unheard of. Even if only 50 years ago.

Marco B · Feb 8, 2009

Ray Rogers said:
How did I miss this shot? It is right there in plain English!
If I had seen that the first time, we could have avoided all this confusion!

Ray

Yeh, well, the plain English happens to be there after some "Paint" magic by me...

Marco B · Feb 8, 2009

Fleath said:
It was my understanding that the backing paper is indeed thinner (thicker? It's midnight here) at the edges, even fractionally, to improve light tightness. This is part of what makes it such a specialist thing to manufacture, and such a big part of the cost of 120 format. I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to pitch in, but a "bevel" at the edges isn't unheard of. Even if only 50 years ago.

Ok, thanks so much for stepping in here, so the paper might indeed be beveled at the edges than, as opposed to at the end... anyone else with more confirmation of this :confused:

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

Some thoughts on the red solution.

Here are some that are red and used in film and paper....

Rhodium Chloride, Rhodium Bromide, Manganous Sulfate, and Gold Chloride.

The Gold solution would be more dilute, used in lower quantity and subtly off in color so I don't think that is it. It also could be the sensitizing dye or absorber dye, but those are usually added after the precipitatoin and just before coating.

PE

Ray Rogers · Feb 8, 2009

Marco B said:
I still think it might be some other chemical or additive included that may cause the color....

Yes, It is certainly some other chemical because it is not KBr!
It is entirely possible that the small bottle being added is a rhodium solution as PE suggested, and that the other red liquid (galon jugs) is a dye; There is perhaps a slight difference in appearence - on the other hand, they could be the same as there are red and green solutions, in both sizes, in the prep room.

I don't know about the small bottle, but I suspect the gallon jugs are filled with dyes.

Anyway, I will get back to the translation corrections which are nearly finished.

Ray Rogers · Feb 8, 2009

Fleath said:
It was my understanding that the backing paper is indeed thinner (thicker? It's midnight here) at the edges, even fractionally, to improve light tightness. This is part of what makes it such a specialist thing to manufacture, and such a big part of the cost of 120 format. I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to pitch in, but a "bevel" at the edges isn't unheard of. Even if only 50 years ago.

Interesting.

I have a very very vague image of playing with ("marveling" at) such a thing as a child, but this could just be "creative imaging"

I have a roll of TMY here... and it is not (to touch anyway) thinner nor thicker near the flanges...
also, remember if this runs the length of the film, it would be thicker and we might all be familiar with such thing.

I notice on my TMY that it still uses those black stripes along the length of the yellow backing paper... not that they seem the least bit bevelled.

Ray

Ray Rogers · Feb 8, 2009

Marco B said:
John Shriver said:
"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."

Yes, I was wondering about this... I have used 620 but don't recall anything about it other than that it looked pretty much like 120... Is it possible 620 or 616 is different (in a "bevel" sort of way) from the 120 I am familiar with today?

Kirk Keyes · Feb 8, 2009

Maybe someone with a caliper and some 120 sitting about can actually measure the paper and solve this...

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

The 120 paper is slightly oversized for the spools. It is necessary to maintain the light tightness of the roll.

I can imagine a bevel to allow the paper to flex and still not let the roll become too thick at the edges. IDK for sure.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

I revisited the documentary and it froze about 1/2 way through, but I saw enough to convince me of some things.

First, I noted the kettle size where they were making the emulsion. Heh. It is too small and does not appear to be jacketed for tempering. The very old picture I posted earlier here is clearly jacketed for heating and cooling. So, that does not appear to be anything but a mixing kettle for chemicals to be delivered elsewhere. Yet they appear to be making.

The coating operation itself is moving at about 10 feet per minute or thereabouts, but that would never pass in production which generally used about 100 ft/min even in those older times. Otherwise, Kodak could not have made much film for a WW supplier. In the early part of the century, those trough coaters certainly did go that slow, but Kodak was a lot smaller then.

I am fully convinced that this was staged with everything dummied up. Probably they were testing equipment out. If you saw how fast film came off the packing line in the mid 60s, and compared it with that film, there is just no comparison. The pictures of a small coating machine posted here on APUG show a small machine with an extrusion hopper that could coat as fast or faster than what is shown in the film.

Yeah, I think it was dummied up to test things. However, the trough coater is full width. I am going to try and watch it again, as that is just where it froze on me.

PE

Chazzy · Feb 8, 2009

If I were director of a documentary, I would probably want the liquids to be colored too, just as movie chemists always have lots of bubbling, brightly colored solutions around. The actual reality of what most solutions look like is pretty dull.

dwross · Feb 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Who knows at this late date?
PE

Haunting words. Is there anything that can be done to daylight and untangle the history of industrial photography? Are there any plans at Kodak to publish the secrets that are no longer important to their bottom line? I've never been to Rochester. Perhaps something of this nature is already going on (?).

Marco B said:
John Shriver said:

"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."

Ray, maybe we should solve this by sticking to the original suggestions of the sides of the film being beveled, and as you, Denise and PE suggested, add a list of remarks about confusing / conflicting aspects in the film

That list might include:

- Film type being made / spooled
- Sides or end of paper backing being beveled
- KBr not being a red solution
- Type of machinery outdated for late '50s

When Denise is going to host this on her website, these remarks might be added on the webpage as clarification / cautionary warnings.

Absolutely.

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

Denise;

IDK what Kodak plans, but there are plans, of that we can be sure. They may just have a big bonfire of all data in the parking lot at KRL.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Feb 8, 2009

Ron - didn't you mention a while ago that Kodak was going to publish all old formulas at so many years after the fact, and do this a couple times to cover the middle decades of the last century?

Fifty one year old Kodak documentary

Photo Engineer

Attachments

Ray Rogers

Ray Rogers

Marco B

Ray Rogers

Marco B

Attachments

AgX

Marco B

Ray Rogers

Ray Rogers

Marco B

Alex Bishop-Thorpe

Marco B

Marco B

Photo Engineer

Ray Rogers

Ray Rogers

Ray Rogers

Kirk Keyes

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Chazzy

dwross

Photo Engineer

Kirk Keyes

Fifty one year old Kodak documentary

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency