What do you know about the edge printing on Kodak Vision3 films?

[koraks]

Here's what I'm talking about:

This is the little I know about it:
EN stands for Eastman Negative
I suspect that 05 stands for a production batch or a strip number (after slitting from a master roll).
6613 + 32 I suspect is a length indication with the "6613" denoting ft. from a certain starting point and the "+32" is an offset from the preceding ft. marker. The ft. markers are the same code but without the "+32" but in a larger font. The round dots at the end of the length markers are indeed spaced at neatly 1 ft. apart. So I guess this is a way to identify where exactly this particular bit of film was located on the master roll.

I'm not sure about the "9635".
And what's the barcode?

There's also this:

This is in the same font as the intermediate ft. markers shown above.
5207 is the film type; Vision3 250D in this case.
I think 367 is the emulsion number and is probably (?) a unique emulsion batch.
I'm not sure about the other numbers. The 2022 looks too eerily similar to a year code to be a coincidence, so I suspect that these numbers are production date & time codes?

And, perhaps most importantly: the color after inversion seems to be neutral grey. I imagine the color balance and density of the control numbers are in fact fairly tightly controlled. As such, they might be very useful for color balancing negative scans. It also seems to me that if I balance the text to neutral grey, the color balance of the actual images isn't quite right. Could this be correct?

Please add your observations, suspicions and especially verified information!

PS: some of this I gleaned from this here: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/How-to-read-a-Kodak-film-can-label.pdf
I don't feel like rummaging through storage presently but I could look up the tin (including label) that I took the film from with the edge print above so I could cross-reference with the label.

 

[dokko]

I have to dig up some of my old resources to answer specifics, but some things of the top of my head:

one thing I know is that the edge markings on motion picture film holds information about manufacturing (to react if there's a defect in a certain batch but also to make sure that the color rendering is exactly the same - not too long ago films were printed completely optically, so people could only do simple RGB and density adjustments).
this info is what's also printed on the film can and the clapper/loader kept track which scene was shot on which emulsion batch and in which magazine.

the other information is a unique sequential code (called keycode), which made it possible to locate a specific frame in many thousand feet of film (or millions in cases like "Apocalypse Now"). This was essential for editing, sound synchronisation and splicing the final master negative together. At some point, a machine readable barcode of this was introduced to make it easier for modern workflows.

 

[koraks]

Thanks for chiming in @dokko; what you said meshes quite well with what I've deduced and what's documented in the label instructions I linked to.

In case you manage to find anything in particular about the color/density of the edge markings, I'd be very grateful indeed!

 

[dokko]

In case you manage to find anything in particular about the color/density of the edge markings, I'd be very grateful indeed!

I can't remember ever having heard anything about the color of the edge markings - it would be great if those were exposed to be neutral density, but as you mention the question is how tightly controlled that process was.

unfortunately all the labs I used these days don't tightly control their chemistry anymore. When I worked with the former motion picture lab here in Berlin 25 years ago, they had a chemist specially tweaking the developer to exact specifications (pH, specific gravity etc), adding raw chemicals accordingly, and run control strips every few hours.
since the films were printed completely analog and shots from one day were often intercut with shots of the others, they had to match exactly.

these days all photo lab I used just have a default replenishing rate set and never bother to check with control strips. I made tests where I had two films of the same scene shot at the same time processed a couple of days apart and the result were shockingly different.
this is just to say that even though the edge markings might be designed to be neutral, the processing will most likely mess this up (might still be helpful to correct the shift introduced in processing though).

sorry for the long rambling, back to work

 

[dokko]

ps: Kodak has fantastically detailed information about their motion picture processes freely available. probably a point for a separate thread but here a brief link collection..

ECN-2:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-1.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-2.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-3.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-4.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-5.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-6.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-7.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-8.pdf

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-9.pdf

b/w:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-15.pdf

and chemicals:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Using-KODAK-Kit-Chemicals-in-Motion-Picture-Film-Laboratories.pdf

they also have information for print film and reversal film, but unfortunately the reversal is still about the old VNF process and not the modern E-6. still some useful general info in there though.

edit: there is a Kodak document about the photo E-6 processing, not as detailed as their motion picture documents and it seems to have vanished from the Kodak site, but still can be found here:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j83-2005_11.pdf

 

[lamerko]

The older films have a different format - the year of production is coded, in the case of the new ones - simply written. I am attaching descriptions and an example from my old film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Is there a place on the web that shows how they ID mark their other films?

 

[koraks]

I made tests where I had two films of the same scene shot at the same time processed a couple of days apart and the result were shockingly different.
this is just to say that even though the edge markings might be designed to be neutral, the processing will most likely mess this up (might still be helpful to correct the shift introduced in processing though).

Ouch!
Well, one reason to be enthusiastic about decently controlled edge exposures would be because it gives a tiny bit of insight into whether the film was processed more or less correctly, although this would require a very small aperture densitometer. Maybe with some trickery a flatbed scanner can be 'calibrated' well enough (by scanning a known reference along with the film strip) to approximate some readings.

I am attaching descriptions and an example from my old film.

Cool, thanks!

Is there a place on the web that shows how they ID mark their other films?

Well, there's not all that much on there, and what's there is pretty much self-explanatory, isn't it? Just film type + frame indicators for roll film and only the film type for sheets. The only 'mysterious' thing is why Kodak starts numbering their 120 rolls at 41, but I think a very reasonable guess is here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/edge-markings-on-120-film.55901/post-815642

 

[lamerko]

Is there a place on the web that shows how they ID mark their other films?

For the already discontinued fujifilm eterna/reala - description of markings. Unfortunately, there is no year of manufacture.

 

[dokko]

The only 'mysterious' thing is why Kodak starts numbering their 120 rolls at 41, but I think a very reasonable guess is here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/edge-markings-on-120-film.55901/post-815642

I'm pretty certain that the additional numbers are to avoid ambiguous guesses about which frame we mean when we write down a frame number for communication.

like on 35mm film, there are markings 1 | 1A | 2 | 2A | 3 etc. the reason is, that if the number by accident is exactly in between two frames, you can still use the other number to make it totally clear which frame you're talking about.

120 film makes things more complex since there are different formats (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 etc) and camera loading and transport differ as well. so chances are high that a number falls in between frames sometimes.

now they could just have printed tightly spaced numbers from 1-100 on each roll and there would be enough definitive ones to choose from, but I guess for historical/compatibility reasons they decided to stay with 1-12 on one side and add a second set of clearly different numbers on the other side of the film.
if you look closely, you'll notice that they are carefully arranged that they are always offset slightly, to make sure that there is no spot on the film where you could have no definitive number (well, unless you shoot something like 6x2).

I've added this info to the other thread as well in case it comes up in a search.

 

[koraks]

OK, thanks! I've also responded there, so let's continue the discussion on regular 120 still film over there and focus on Vision3 (and other ECN2 films, I'm OK with that) in this thread.

 

[MattKing]

@cmacd123 - this thread is calling your name
Charles has lots of posts on Photrio about keycodes and Kodak motion picture film.
And as for variability, there is a reason that large productions insist on their purchase being all from a single emulsion batch.
Sometimes, film productions stop mid-shooting - usually due to money. If new funding is found, one of the challenges sometimes is getting Eastman Kodak to supply new film that has similar response to the original stock.
That being said, the differences are usually tiny - only really relevant because of concerns with continuity. Many/most scenes are not shot all at once - they are put together from shots made on different days and locations.

 

[cmacd123]

Here's what I'm talking about:
View attachment 353456

This is the little I know about it:
EN stands for Eastman Negative
I suspect that 05 stands for a production batch or a strip number (after slitting from a master roll).
6613 + 32

what you are seeing is a middle foot footage number, (+32 perforations from the Main footage number) The DOT is where the number is refering to as Movie film is used with 2, 3 4 or 8 perf formats the numbers try to be unique so that if editing rolls shot on differnt days, there would be no confusion. the Human Readable numbers are replicated in the bar code so that frames can be identified if scanning.

EN in this case is 5207.

There's also this:
View attachment 353461
This is in the same font as the intermediate ft. markers shown above.
5207 is the film type; Vision3 250D in this case.
I think 367 is the emulsion number and is probably (?) a unique emulsion batch.
I'm not sure about the other numbers. The 2022 looks too eerily similar to a year code to be a coincidence, so I suspect that these numbers are production date & time codes?

Yes this is the film identification. 5207 is the film type and 367 is the emusion number. and yes after having two letter codes they finaly started butting the actual date of Manufacture. the official list shows 2016 as being coded LS, while 2015 would have been FA.

And, perhaps most importantly: the color after inversion seems to be neutral grey.

FWIW, the one roll of Movie ektachrome I shot has white/grey edge print. so they do intend that to be neutral.

Please add your observations, suspicions and especially verified information!

PS: some of this I gleaned from this here: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/How-to-read-a-Kodak-film-can-label.pdf

the Kodak site has a diagram of what every mark is suposed to mean. https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/post-production-35mm-keykode-diagram.pdf the diagram was also back when they were using codes for the year. (a couple of things in the diagram I have not seen on actual film, But I have only been using 5222 lately. (they have another diagram for both 16mm and 65mm)

start of the information is at https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/keykode-numbers

 

[cmacd123]

yes the PDF shows both the first version, and then the current version.

 

[koraks]

@cmacd123 thanks, that's excellent! I hadn't yet found that Kodak page you linked to. It explains it all, except for the hue/density of the edge print. So, to recap/summarize:

5207 = film type; in this case Vision3 250D
367 = emulsion number
01101 = roll number 011, part number 01
33 = strip number (after slitting)
177 = printer number; I assume 'printer' refers to the device that actually exposes the edge print.
2022 = year of manufacture.

And this:
EN = E for Eastman Kodak, N stands for the film type, which in this case is 5207 or Vision3 250D. So this is redundant with the information at the start of the other edge imprint shown above.
05 9635 = prefix that identifies the fill roll. I suspect this may be the actual confectioned 400ft roll. Apparently these rolls have unique identifiers; not just the long pancakes that result from slitting.
6613 = length indicator, increments per ft.
+32 = The round dot is exactly below the 32nd sprocket hole from the previous length indicator.

The barcode is a standard 128-style code, consisting of:

• A leading character as required by the barcode standard
• Manufacturer ID
• Film type ("07")
• Prefix ("05 9635")
• Count / length indicator ("6613")
• Offset in perforations ("32"; will be "00" on the edge print without the "+32" suffix)
• Check sum based on the preceding data for verifying correct readout
• Stop character as required by barcode standard

As to the color of the edge print, there's only brief mention of it in relation to the barcode:

• the bar code, printed with solid pixels and in a more neutral color to improve image quality

The 'more'/'improve' apparently refers to the previously used edge print on older products (pre 2016-ish), which was apparently printed in a different fashion and different color. Since they mention "more neutral", it seems we cannot assume "perfectly neutral". It would be interesting to know how much variation there is between the individual keycode printers in use, but I suspect this is something that is not being tightly controlled. If they happen to all print more or less the same balance and density, it's just because component variation and production of such printers tends to be fairly consistent. This is something someone would have to check if they wanted to use the densities/hue of the keycode print for color balancing purposes. From my own scans, I can only say that the keycode print shown above isn't perfectly neutral; if I balance the images on it (daylight exposures), they have a significant color cast.

 

[cmacd123]

And this:
EN = E for Eastman Kodak, N stands for the film type, which in this case is 5207 or Vision3 250D. So this is redundant with the information at the start of the other edge imprint shown above.

Yes, kodak has made so many different films when they were trying to outdo Fuji, that they have assigned every code starting with E (eastman) and K (kodak). Fuji with their Mr.Code used FN and a number for all their Movie Negatives.

Orwo N74 was marked ON and Orwo UN54 was marked OU
I think Ilford used I But I have never seen any Ilford Key Code compatible film. (found it in an old data sheet. IF ==FP4 Plus, IH== HP5 Plus and IS == SFX200 which I saved in 2003



as far as redundancy, for Old fashioned Scissors and cement film editing, the footage number has generaly always had some sort of code to identify the type of film. the footage Numbers are printed through to the "Rushes" which become a "work Print" and the conventional editor picks the edit points and splices the work print into a prototype of the finished film. Once that is approved, they can go back and find from there notes which rolls of Negative have the Camera Negative for the scenes and shots used, and a specialist "conforms" the negative to match the work print. (this is so specalized that One of the more famous folks who does this has their OWN Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Henry
In "digital intermediate" editing that film ID info (type and foot number - plus frame) is on the screen for the digital editor.
having some sort of Code to identify the type of film goes back to when the footage numbers were printed in Ink on the back of the film.

Since they mention "more neutral", it seems we cannot assume "perfectly neutral". It would be interesting to know how much variation there is between the individual keycode printers in use, but I suspect this is something that is not being tightly controlled. If they happen to all print more or less the same balance and density, it's just because component variation and production of such printers tends to be fairly consistent.

Judgeing from the one roll of Ektachrome 5294 100D I have had processed so far . {Flic Chrome 100} the edge printing resenbles the colour of a white LED.

 

[cmacd123]

that Ilford May 2002 data sheet also metioned that Agfa used "A" (and Fuji used F )

 

[lamerko]

I have an Agfa XT100 box that I haven't started yet, but these days I intend to test it. We'll see what comes out as a markup...

 

[arturo_rs]

According the kodak pdf (https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3-250D-Technical-Data-EN.pdf), for 250D (page 2):

Identification

After processing, the product code numbers 5207, or 7207 emulsion, roll, and strip number identification, KEYKODE Numbers, and manufacturer/film identification code (EN) are visible along the length of the film.

 

[koraks]

@arturo_rs thanks. If you read the exchange above, you can see we've actually determined exactly what is in which place and what all the numbers mean. I'm aware the datasheet gives a general reference, but it's not very specific. It's also not specific on the color balance of the edge print.

 

[MattKing]

This was shared with me by a very reliable source:

First the link - which I believe duplicates the link posted by Charles earlier: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/post-production-35mm-keykode-diagram.pdf

And then the fleshed out background information:

"The 35mm Keykode chart shows two different formats. Why was there a previous 35mm and a present 35mm Keykode format? Well, Kodak changed perforating technology and with that the edgeprinting technology had to change. The newer perforators that came on line were much faster than those who originally received Keykode printers.
Keykode was originally developed in 1988 and released on actual test rolls in late 1989. At that time, a blue micro-LED was not available, and I do not believe any blue LED’s existed. The original format was printed with green and red micro-LEDs and upon processing would come out bluish in tone (magenta + cyan dye density). The new printing technology uses a laser diode writing system that is more neutral in color and the Keykode edgeprint appears more of a red-brownish tint when processed in ECN-2 chemistry.
Keykode technology was developed because the older latent image edgeprint was printed with a four-digit footage repeat and only a two digit sequence. Thus, a movie production could expose and process two different rolls that contained the same edgeprint information, leaving negative cutters to have to trust lab processing sequence numbers to be sure that they were cutting the correct scenes of a production. Keykode features a six-digit sequence number and four digits for the footage numbers, which virtually eliminated the possibility of a film mix-up in post-production negative cutting."

 

[koraks]

Cool, thanks! I really like the bit about the edge printers, evidently, because that's really the kind of information not available elsewhere. Since they use a laser diode system and the edge printing actually comes out fairly neutral, this suggests they're actually using a combination of diodes (probably RGB) in tight alignment.

In case there's any possibility of following up on it, I have some small additional questions:
* How much variation can we expect in the RGB densities of the edge print/Keykode between rolls?
* The red-brownish tint you mentioned, is that in the negative or after inversion and color adjustment? Because mine seems to come out as a desaturated purple/lilac rather than brown if I adjust the images to more or less neutral. Of course, my ECN2 process could be off, but it's also possible I misinterpreted the phrase about the hue.

 

[cmacd123]

* The red-brownish tint you mentioned, is that in the negative or after inversion and color adjustment? Because mine seems to come out as a desaturated purple/lilac rather than brown if I adjust the images to more or less neutral. Of course, my ECN2 process could be off, but it's also possible I misinterpreted the phrase about the hue.

My guess is that they are talking about the appearance looking at the Negative. When the numbers are printed though to a positive print, they are often printed lighter than the camera lens image, so they don't obscure the edge print if any on the edge of the print stock.

BTW, for a while their was the SONY SDDS sound system, which used the edge print area of 35mm theatrical prints to hold a digital soundtrack. the Dolby sound track was in the spaces between the sprocket holes. (and EVERY little Bar code had a Dolby Double D Logo on it)

 

[KyleMika]

My guess is that they are talking about the appearance looking at the Negative. When the numbers are printed though to a positive print, they are often printed lighter than the camera lens image, so they don't obscure the edge print if any on the edge of the print stock.

BTW, for a while their was the SONY SDDS sound system, which used the edge print area of 35mm theatrical prints to hold a digital soundtrack. the Dolby sound track was in the spaces between the sprocket holes. (and EVERY little Bar code had a Dolby Double D Logo on it)

Fun fact: The Dolby "bar code", which actually looks like a QR code, is called a Fixel in the patent! Its hilarious, a "Film-Pixel"

 

[O z]

Hi everyone!
Great discussion above!

I could use help in identifying this mysterious Kodak film. I believe it’s a motion picture film but I couldn’t find anything about it online using the edge-print code. It is “K•ODAK 26 12” as it shows in the attached image.