Fifty one year old Kodak documentary

[Photo Engineer]

They have donated George Eastman's notebooks to GEH as promised, and that covers the early years from founding of the company through 19xx (and I don't know the year). These books are currently on the restricted access list from what I have been told, but IDK for sure. I know that a historical documentation project is under way. That is about all I can say.

PE

 

[Kirk Keyes]

That is about all I can say.

All you can say, or all that you know... ;^)

 

[Photo Engineer]

IDK where any of this stands. I have not heard anything on the subject discussed for over a year. So, thats all I know. In fact, as you see, I'm not sure of the status of George Eastman's notebooks as I have never looked into seeing them at all, nor would they be of much use.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

I have not heard anything on the subject discussed for over a year.

Same here.

 

[Ray Rogers]

I revisited the documentary and it froze about 1/2 way through...

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.

I am going to try and watch it again, as that is just where it froze on me.

PE

The first mixing scene, where the brownish-red powder is being mixed, is indeed done in a small, non-jacketed kettle, but later on the KBr and AgNO3 are mixed in a regulation size jacketed kettle.

As far as coating speed, I think all we saw was the start of the process... Can the speed be ramped up after starting out slowly?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ray;

You are right, the second kettle is jacketed and appears normal but small for full production. That is an old pilot kettle.

As for speed, yes, coating rate can ramp up, but I've never seen or heard of it being done except with slide and curtain coaters. The reason I reached the conclusion I did is due to the fact that only at the slow speeds shown, can the roll changovers at the front and end of the machine be made manually. At about 100+ feet / min, it becomes very hard to change rolls manually as shown and can be dangerous as well.

You can see the takeup speed at the rear end of the machine, and that kind of shows the speed.

Also, note the red emulsion at the start, but the neutral color at the end of the operation. Seems like something happened in between to me. Different film or a chemical reaction.

I'm totally confused about this. It looks like a hodge podge of things that are meant to confuse more than help.

Another note is the fact that Gelatin from Eastman Gelatin has been delivered for years as pellets not sheets. The use of sheets went out in the 50s or earlier and I only saw sheet gelatin once in an old bottle in the stockroom. All of ours was either the pellet form or already prepared as 12% or 22%.

It also strikes me that the sensitometric curve shown during testing is more like that of a lith film than a camera negative film.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

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.

OK, working backwards (and walking out on a limb) I think I might have found a plausable original /and or translation:

The yellow backing paper protects the film. The tapered end wraps around the film pushing it tightly against the film spool to avoid accidental exposure.

this might have been translated into Dutch in such a way that when translated into English comes out:

The yellow backing paper protects the film and the sides have been beveled, thereby pushing the film against the film reel and avoiding accidental exposure.

Just a guess but it is the only way that makes sense to me.

Anyway it is up to you guys.

Which do you want?

1.
The yellow backing paper protects the film, it's tapered end wrapping around the film pushing it tightly against the film spool to avoid accidental exposure.

or

2.
The yellow backing paper protects the film and the sides have been beveled, thereby pushing the film against the film reel and avoiding accidental exposure.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ray;

You must have missed what I posted about this. The paper backing is just slightly oversized for the spool to form a light tight fit. If so, it bends upwards due to being oversize. It takes up more space. By beveling the edges, the paper may bend upwards but pressure and the thinner nature of the film will compress it to become even and light tight.

At least that is my take.

Unless it is beveled to cause paper cuts on the fingers of the guy checking it out by running said fingers along the freshly slit edges.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

That is an old pilot kettle.

note the red emulsion at the start, but the neutral color at the end of the operation. Seems like something happened in between to me. Different film or a chemical reaction.

I'm totally confused about this. It looks like a hodge podge of things that are meant to confuse more than help.

How many Liters do you suspect it is?
I thought the jacketed one looked like it might hold a 1000.
Do you place it at less than that?

As far as the color goes, these were shot in white light... could that gray be a print out color? There is no telling how long it had been exposed to light... that section might have been shot a day or two later...
What color is a finished Verichrome Pan emulsion? If the Lab tech was actually preparing for a weeks run of VP; would we get gray from that mixture of green and red (along the other dyes as you mention)? Is that the color of the VP emulsion on film as we would see if we opened up a box? (I think so, but it has been too long for me to remember!)

In anycase, we must remember that their only goal was to tell the story of how film was made and not to document one film's manufacture from start to finish.

So I am not too concerned about those details. I think Kodak was careful, but nothing more. It's just the way movies are made.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ray;

You must have missed what I posted about this. The paper backing is just slightly oversized for the spool to form a light tight fit. If so, it bends upwards due to being oversize. It takes up more space. By beveling the edges, the paper may bend upwards but pressure and the thinner nature of the film will compress it to become even and light tight.

At least that is my take.

Unless it is beveled to cause paper cuts on the fingers of the guy checking it out by running said fingers along the freshly slit edges.

PE

I saw it, but then I looked a a roll of film I had handy...
are you suggesting that Kodak discontinued the policy at some time?
The TMY I was looking at seems to be a "just fit" cut snug.

I was thinking the film it self might be slightly narrower than the backing paper, that might make sense, but if you are saying the backing paper is slightly over-sized for the spool, all I can say is ??? !

I did not understand your finger cut sentence.

Did you mean to say, "to NOT cause paper cuts" ?

 

[Marco B]

I just spoke to Frank Bruinsma, the owner of the site where the film is hosted. He's going to send an AVI based version of this film to me. Very friendly of him. As I stated before, he just wants an AVI based version of the film back, with the English subtitles or narration.

Again: Is there anyone who could do the video-editing? :confused: My first idea is just subtitles, as this probably easier to do than narration, and some of you actually seemed to like the Dutch narration (well, the outdated spoken language probably does fit the film's age ). Also, since there is music and other sounds, subtitles is probably more fitting.

 

[Ray Rogers]

I just spoke to Frank Bruinsma, the owner of the site where the film is hosted. He's going to send an AVI based version of this film to me. Very friendly of him. As I stated before, he just wants an AVI based version of the film back, with the English subtitles or narration.

Again: Is there anyone who could do the video-editing? :confused: My first idea is just subtitles, as this probably easier to do than narration, and some of you actually seemed to like the Dutch narration (well, the outdated spoken language probably does fit the film's age ). Also, since there is music and other sounds, subtitles is probably more fitting.

Marco,

I want to work on it, at least a subtitle version.

If someone else is interested that is OK too.
Perhaps someone with a nice, teacher-like voice
would like to do a voice-over version?

That would be nice!

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ray;

You must have missed what I posted about this. The paper backing is just slightly oversized for the spool to form a light tight fit. If so, it bends upwards due to being oversize... By beveling the edges, the paper may bend upwards but pressure and the thinner nature of the film will compress it to become even and light tight.

At least that is my take.
PE

PE, I have been thinking about this and I really don't know... I wish some other people with roll film handy would take a look and see if it looks the way you describe it...
so far it is 2:1 in your favor
only 2 voters though!

I may have to "hit the books" on this one, but it just doesn't LOOK beveled to me. So while I may concede if no one else can bring up some convincing proof one way or the other, I don't think I will be able to sleep well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, any panchromatic film would be gray or tan wet or dry. The printout would only darken that. The shots cannot be made of film left in the machine a day or so as there is too much chance for damage to the machine, or at least I would think. IDK for sure again.

The kettle size is difficult to estimate as the height is not shown. I think it mght be about 100 - 500 L, not 1000 L. Those, with jackets, are huge.

As for the bevel, that shot of the operator was before beveling I would think, but maybe not. In any event, the bevel would probably increase the chance of getting a paper cut.

I may have a chance to test the backing with a micrometer today. I'll see if I have any in the lab.

PE

 

[AgX]

To me there are as many advantages as disadvantages coupled to chamfering those long sides of the paper. But does not give the blackening of those sides another indication in that direction?

 

[Ray Rogers]

I can't afford to buy it, nor can I see a copy of it at this time, (maybe later) but I think the specs for these films, including the spool, the film and the backing paper is detailed in ISO 732;

There are several dates for this but ISO 732:1982 may include more spool types.

Ray

 

[Chazzy]

I don't know why, but suddenly I'm fascinated with this question of how the backing paper gets "beveled." To me, the English word "bevel" is an angled surface cut in a hard material of some thickness. I don't know how one could "bevel" the edges of something as thin and as soft as the backing paper. Even if it turns out that the edges are thinner, I wouldn't use the word "bevel" to describe it. Wouldn't "feathering" be a better word in English?

 

[AgX]

Chazzy,

Marco and me, independently of each other, translated the dutch word in question as `bevelled´. Which as the dutch term seems to have several meanings.

The technically more sound term would be (for what I believe to be meant by this film..) `chamfered´.
But that I would not use in a MP aimed at a broad public.

I don't expect paper to be chamfered by grinding, as that would deliver lose fibers, but rather by using calenders.

 

[John Shriver]

Ah, I recognize that "beveling". That's US Patent 1,900,879, issued to John G. Jones on March 7, 1933, assigned to Eastman Kodak. It describes the edge of the paper as having been "stretched". It was deliberately strained when cutting, to make the edge of the paper "frill", and be thus "longer" than the center of the paper. This made it curve up and push against the edge the spool when spooled, making for a more light-tight seal at that point.

The patent number is on one end flap of older Kodak roll-film boxes. On the 1944 Verichrome 116 box I found it on, there is also US Patent number 2,051,216 for an all-metal welded spool.

Kodak certainly patented things that were externally observable and easy to copy.

 

[AgX]

John,

So now we are speaking of bevelled in the meaning of bent, not chamfered.


From another Kodak patent:

“One practical solution to this problem [edge fog on film with backing paper on reels with flanges] has been to provide a backing paper wherin the edges of the paper are feathered so that they tightly engage the flanges of the film.”

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ah, I recognize that "beveling". That's US Patent 1,900,879, issued to John G. Jones on March 7, 1933, assigned to Eastman Kodak. It describes the edge of the paper as having been "stretched". It was deliberately strained when cutting, to make the edge of the paper "frill", and be thus "longer" than the center of the paper. This made it curve up and push against the edge the spool when spooled, making for a more light-tight seal at that point.

The patent number is on one end flap of older Kodak roll-film boxes.

Thank you John!

That is the kind of "proof" I was looking for to convince me that common sense needed to be put aside! (Even the author of that patent notes the difficulty in showing the way it looks) Looking at his drawings, I would still object! but the text does describe this film characteristic so I concede. Now, back to choosing the best word to describe this... beveled or bevelled may not be the best here... anyway, thanks to everyone who stuck it out this far and esp. thanks to AgX who never gave up!

It is nice to learn something new... I will have to read those patents carefully, but it seems PE (and my very very vague memory) were not wrong in essence even if they were fuzzy in detail.

Ray

 

[Photo Engineer]

What I've been saying!!!!!!

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

What I've been saying!!!!!!

PE

Yes. Indeed! Sort of...

But it is really John Shriver who said it most clearly and deserves our appreciation.

Anyway, I am not one to split hairs unnecessarily!

You were right in essence and that is good enough for me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I did not know the patent #, but I did remember that the paper was treated to be oversize. And John did say it unambiguously. So, thanks John.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

The rest of the story...

I did remember that the paper was treated to be oversize.

Some example dimentions given by Jones:

Backing paper width greater than flange span: 0.508 - 1.27 mm
Backing paper width: 88.90 mm
same + .03mm extra for expansion due to humidity: 88.93 mm

Width of margins: 0.508 - 3.302 mm
Thinness of margins: 0.0381 - 0.0762 mm

However, Jones, way back in 1923 wrote:
"I have discovered that it is possible to so construct the backing paper that its effective width as it is being spooled is not greater than the distance between the end flanges, but when subject to the pressure of the tight winding on the spool, it will expand laterally and the edges will be forced tightly against the inner edges of the flange, forming light tight seals."
USP 1,454,817 (1923) Jones. J.G.

So while he referrs to oversize paper, it looks like his invention is actually a way to get around using it!

I hesitate to continue since we have found sufficient data to verify the translation, perhaps we can continue in private?