Gevaert (Agfa) "How film is made" video of 1954

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:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

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

But this also shows some paper coating...

Marco

**** 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).

Thanks Marco (and AgX), great film!

Full translation of 1954 Gevaert film

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

Minor correction to translation

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.

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."

Q.G. said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Marco

Marco B said:

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...

[...]

Click to expand...

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!

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?

Q.G. said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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?

Q.G. said:

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!

Click to expand...

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

Marco B said:

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),

Click to expand...

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.

Marco B said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

Marco B said:

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

Click to expand...

Of what language?


P.S.

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

Q.G. said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Q.G. said:

It is your 'translation'.

Click to expand...

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

Q.G. said:

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

Click to expand...

Next time, its your turn!

Marco B said:

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?

Click to expand...

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!

Marco B said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Marco B said:

Next time, its your turn!

Click to expand...

Will gladly help, if an occassion presents itself.

Marco B said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Q.G. said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

Q.G. said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

AgX said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Photo Engineer said:

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

Click to expand...

PE, the discussion point is about the hand-cranked hopper / coater as visible in the beginning of the video, which depicts the situation around 1900.

Would "wick" be a correct term for the reddish flexible strip sticking out of the underside of the visible through in that fragment? Or would "brush" be a better term?:

3,09 3,12 Around 1900 Lieven Gevaert built a half automated hopper (coating machine)
3,13 3,16 Production commenced under yellow light
3,17 3,19 A piece of paper was tightened in a frame
3,19 3,22 and was hand cranked
3,23 3,25 The light sensitive emulsion flowed from a bottle into a through
3,26 3,29 to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper

I cannot tell from the image. I even ran it in the larger size but it was worse.

I can say that depending on the construction of that strip it could be either a wick or a blade. One works during application (wick) and they both can work after application (wick or blade) and the wick can apply or resurface the coating. The blade can only resurface the coating. This is what my coating blades do, and what was done by Kodak in the 40s and earlier.

PE

Marco B said:

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



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...

Click to expand...

Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:

No!
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.

If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.

Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".

You are then bending the narrative to mean, not what Gevart reportedly did, but to what other manufactures "generally" do.

That's not translating. That's revising.
The narrative says they used a wick (clearly audible: "wiek"), you're co-translator told you that they (said that they) used a wick.
So ... still want to revise? Or translate?



(P.S.
The instances i was alluding to - of translators goofing because they don't understand what they are translating - invariably would have not gone wrong if they just had translated what was said.
But they, not understanding, try to make sense of it, turning out nonsense instead.

If they only would have enough confidence in the people whose words they are translating, and not instead try to make something else of it, something that they understand, we would have much better subtitles. )

Q.G. said:

Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:

No!
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.

Click to expand...

It depends on the purpose of the translation. If it merely is to convert words from one language to another, you are right, but I personally do indeed think that in this case people are probably better served with a term they can immediately understand, and thus get some insight into the working of all these wonderfully complex but unknown devices, than get confused.

I am fully aware that that is a subjective approach...

Q.G. said:

If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.

Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".

Click to expand...

You are now blindly assuming the narration of the film is correct. It was 1954, over 50 years after these devices were used... Maybe even at Gevaert itself, they were unsure what to call this device... I do agree it is likely they used "wick", but what I actually attempt to say or ask is "is there anyone who has some historic literature to confirm the (somewhat unfamiliar but probably correct) usage of the word "wiek / wick" here..."

That is is not the same as me wanting to use the "general term"...

I "want" "scientific proof" (well, horrible term here )

Q.G. said:

So ... still want to revise? Or translate?

Click to expand...

I want neither, I just want confirmation of the term as used at Gevaert

The "last witness" died 1945.

What did not deter Gevaert people to use the term "wick" later.