Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Identifying Things From Rp's Footage

Recommended Posts

Guest Wolverton

I am not sure I have the facts straight so please feel free to straighten me out.

Ektachrome has codes on the margins to assist with editing.

Kodachrome does not have these codes.

Do the codes on ektachrome count up from 1 or some standard starting point and progress from that point?

If so I am assuming that such a code would make it clear at what point in the reel a frame or shot was taken from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

This is a little off topic so please forgive me. I was curious Bill - are there any plans/intentions to release the high resolutions scans in the form of a movie on dvd? (maybe even a cropped version and or slo mo) Just wondering if there will ever be a release or way to view this in its high res form. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Wolverton:

"Ektachrome has codes on the margins to assist with editing.

Kodachrome does not have these codes.

Do the codes on ektachrome count up from 1 or some standard starting point and progress from that point?

If so I am assuming that such a code would make it clear at what point in the reel a frame or shot was taken from."

Here's what it looks like, first.

filmedgecode.jpg

Top is the "Ektachrome latent image film stock name. The second panel shows the footage edgecode. Kodak exposes this into the film at time of manufacture, but in the sprocket area where the camera won't produce any exposure. The "J1 over the 19" is some type of product code. The 90496 is the footage edgecode, and it goes up one number exactly every foot (so next is 90497, etc.)throughout the roll. The film is manufactured on an endless roll, and so edgecodes just keep numbering up higher and higher. The first edge code on any given reel does not necessarily start at any numerical point.

when you make a work print to edit, this code is printed through on to that work print. You edit the workprint, with a lot of handling, running through moviolas, marking frames with grease pencils, and maybe stepping on the film a time or two. So you finally have the final edit you want.

You put the edited copy into a gang synchronizer (something that just has a row of sprocket wheels to run several films side by side) and you find the first scene in your work print and find the first edgecode number in that sequence. Then find the camera original of that scene and put the camera original into the gang synchronizer, so the two films have their same edgecode numbers at the same marking point. Then turn the synchronizer back to the start of the edited scene, and where it was spliced, you splice the pristine original at that point to the head leader.

Then wheel the synchronizer to the end of this first scene and find the splice to the next segment, and cut the original on the same splice point.

Then find the first edgecode number for scene 2, and find that original footage, and align their edge codes exactly. Then wheel back to the splice starting scene two and locate the splicing point on the camera original. Cut it and splice it on to the first scene from the original. Repeat over and over, scene by scene. That allows you to assemble the camera original precisely as the work print was edited.

The edge coding, same on original and work print, allows for this precise assembly to match your work print edit version.

Kodachrome isn't expected to be edited, more for showing the original like home movies, so it doesn't have the latent image edgecode Ektachrome does. That's just how Kodak decided to do it.

Hope that answers your question.

River:

The scans i did are legally Mrs. Patterson's property, so she will make any decision about allowing the scans to be released publicly. My deal with her is I can use some frames to illustrate my research and analysis, but must put on them "for research only" plus her copyright, and use only frames essential to illustrating my analysis. SO I have no authority to release the full set of high res scans, unless she expressly authorizes me to do so, and she has not yet. I'd like to see a way to get them into the research community, but it's not my call. Maybe in the future.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Richard Vedvick, the owner of Forte Labs in Seattle, recalled copying the original film and it was Kodachrome.

"I remember the guys came in, and I made a couple of prints....Yep, one litle short guy, and...I can't remember the other guy. (So you remember two guys coming in with the famous Bigfoot film?) "Oh, sure. It was distinctive film...I remember they were concerned about security. The wanted to be near the film. They wanted to be in its presence all the time. ...It was definitely original film....it was Kodachrome.
MoB, p. 283

Bill, do you have any evidence that Patterson knew about the differences in resolution?

Kodachrome was just a knockout, evident to anyone who projected it; much prettier than Ektachrome, especially with outdoor and forest and fall scenes, because of the enhanced reds and greens. I shot hundreds and hundreds of Kodachrome transparencies and I loved it.

Patterson may have chosen Kodachrome because of that, or because it was viewed as the home movie film. Perhaps he thought if he had used the "pro" film, that was made to duplicate, would be suspicious.

It may have taken a while to figure out what he wanted. If the KIMA TV cameraman Fred Smith was shooting some of this film (the non-K100?), he was certainly in the habit of shooting Ektachrome for news footage. Maybe he even gave Roger some. Kodachrome was not used for that purpose, for obvious reasons: from Yakima it had to be sent to Palo Alto for processing. Many TV stations actually had their own film lab, for Ektachrome. But they couldn't do Kodachrome. Zapruder found that out in Dallas in 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wolverton

thanks for the great info Bill.

It does bring up one more potential reason for switching film. I am guessing that this must have already been brought up at some point, but if I wanted to make sure I could use all my good footage without having to worry about anyone discovering that I had edited my film to remove unfortunate frames, I would use stock that didn't give me away in the margins. Of course the other reasons offered up are also perfectly reasonable but no harm in exploring all the dark corners just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus;

"Bill, do you have any evidence that Patterson knew about the differences in resolution?"

So far, i haven't uncovered anything that specifically tells us how knowledgable Roger was in cinematography, film types, etc. He obviously knew something, having shot what he did, but whether he made conscious choices about one film stock over another, I can't say.

"Kodachrome was just a knockout, evident to anyone who projected it; much prettier than Ektachrome, especially with outdoor and forest and fall scenes, because of the enhanced reds and greens. I shot hundreds and hundreds of Kodachrome transparencies and I loved it."

I started doing 35mm still photography in 1967, and shot kodachrome, ektachrome, panX, plusX, triX, recording film and even infared Ektachrome (which does really weird color shifts on nature photography).

I agree, Kodachrome was always my #1 choice, unless i needed the extra speed of the Ektachrome, since the Kodachrome was ASA 25 daylight as i recall. A lot of the Ektachrome was ASA64, 125 or 160.

So if you did still photography them, you'd pretty quickly love Kodachrome and swear by it, but I don't know if Roger did any serious still photography.

So at this point, trying to guage his knowledge of photography is still uncertain.

Bill

Wolverton:

"It does bring up one more potential reason for switching film. I am guessing that this must have already been brought up at some point, but if I wanted to make sure I could use all my good footage without having to worry about anyone discovering that I had edited my film to remove unfortunate frames, I would use stock that didn't give me away in the margins."

Actually, I don't think this point has been brought up, but you are correct, in that hiding editing on Ektachrome would be harder because of the edgecoding in precise spaced intervals. But you do lose the edgecode in a "release print", because the sides are masked off to allow the option of an optical audio sound track to be added, so if a release print were made from an edited original, there'd be no edgecoding to investigate. it's only on workprint type copies.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Bill, you say that Kodak safety film is not Ektachrome. But really it may have been the Ektachrome emulsion or the equivalent sold for duplicating under a different name, isn't that right? a small point, but confusing to some.

see this page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

great resource. Thanks.

"EASTMAN SAFETY FILM: Might be anything of recent manufacture including

EFB 7242, 7387, 7389, 7390. Must be identified by examination."

This may be the one. What's weird about it is that it says "Eastman 78 Safety Film" and film stocks are usually 4 digit numbers, not 2 digit numbers. So far, nobody's explained the "78". (Not even in Glickman's NASI report, as far as i know).

See below, the copy stock ID on the Patterson Archive copy

EdgeCodeLatentImage.jpg

As far as emulsions go, could be an Ektachrome family stock. But the latent image (Eastman 78 Safety Film)would show as a ghost if that stock were used to copy ektachrome full width and keep the edgecode numbers. So I suspect Kodak did have seperate stocks for copying kodachrome and ektachrome. But I haven't been able to get deeper into that part of the topic yet.

So any info you can provide will certainly be of value for us all.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

hmm, if that is just a square on the film edge, this symbol chart suggests the film was made in 1957!?

kodaksym.jpg

this site has the same info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
This has been described as a place called Caruther's Cove, as reported by Kitakaze (but I vaguely recall he may have attributed the ID of this location to another researcher). I would welcome any remarks verifying if this is the correct location, and how it was determined.

Bill, that was mangler at the JREF that ID'ed Carruthers Cove. This thread is awesome. Thank you so much for doing this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

Richard Vedvick, the owner of Forte Labs in Seattle, recalled copying the original film and it was Kodachrome. MoB, p. 283

Bill, do you have any evidence that Patterson knew about the differences in resolution?

Kodachrome was just a knockout, evident to anyone who projected it; much prettier than Ektachrome, especially with outdoor and forest and fall scenes, because of the enhanced reds and greens. I shot hundreds and hundreds of Kodachrome transparencies and I loved it.

Patterson may have chosen Kodachrome because of that, or because it was viewed as the home movie film. Perhaps he thought if he had used the "pro" film, that was made to duplicate, would be suspicious.

It may have taken a while to figure out what he wanted. If the KIMA TV cameraman Fred Smith was shooting some of this film (the non-K100?), he was certainly in the habit of shooting Ektachrome for news footage. Maybe he even gave Roger some. Kodachrome was not used for that purpose, for obvious reasons: from Yakima it had to be sent to Palo Alto for processing. Many TV stations actually had their own film lab, for Ektachrome. But they couldn't do Kodachrome. Zapruder found that out in Dallas in 1963.

Good point.

More than the difficulty of getting Kodachrome processed opposed to Ektachrome just as film goes, Kodachrome was and still is extremely difficult if not impossible to telecine correctly because the bulbs are not bright enough for the black density. So that is out for the professional or anyone that has a plan to get it on tv straight away. Kodachrome is great for stills but is an amateur motion picture stock for that purpose. Unless his plan was to bring a projector into everyone's living room. Also, I'm not sure but I think they didn't transfer to telecine from the negative until around until ten years later. They used the print positive. I could be mistaken. Sad about the non future of Kodachrome. I never used it and I will never get the chance.

Bill, as far as the "78" goes, I have a guess or rather I can pose a question that might steer you in some sort of direction. But first, the first 2 digits of the 4 digits is the density of the stock. Either a 72 or 73 for 16mm as shown above. The "safety film" refers to an acetate base rather than the dangerous nitrate base that burns down movie theaters and storage facilities. Now the guess at the "78"... Could it be for a specific stock? I remember some kind of code for specific (not the type you just slap into the camera, but for a specific purpose) stocks such as for scientific survey or slides and such. Maybe along those lines. Anyone have a key for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

California Archery season opens around July 12th.

http://skinnymoose.com/racktracker/2008/07/11/california-archery-deer-opener-july-12th/

Here is a hunter that took a Blacktail deer in Velvet on opening day.

http://www.relentless365.com/california-blacktail-mule-deer/ridin%E2%80%99-out-the-storm

If the photo in Bill's list here, is of a spikehorn in velvet, it could be up to Late July, however, if it is the beginning of the antler growth, we could be talking springtime.

It is impossible to tell what size antlers that little deer is trying to develop there.

We should be able to say that the deer in velvet could be from Spring to Mid Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

Here's the copy stock film code for the documentary reel one footage which wasn't Ektachrome camera stock.

ReelOnecopyfilmstock.jpg

It has "Eastman Safety Film", but no 78 number in the latent image. Date code looks to be 1967 (solid square, solid triangle).

Camera was k-100 and the copy process masks off the sides clipping most of (but not quite all) the K-100 Edge ID notch.

This is the 50' segment with some woods, and then the totem pole.

So this segment is the only one with such a copy film type. All the other five reels have the full print through to show the Ektachrome original stock.

The hard part is sorting out what of this data has relevance and what doesn't.

Bill

Forgot to mention, the dot after the "S" in Safety" is the Rochester plant mfg code. A dot after a different letter in SAFETY was apparently their code for other plants around the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

There is a photograph in Wylie's book, of Gimlin kneeling with the two casts Patterson made at Bluff Creek. B and W. The background is suggestive of Bluff Creek. The photo is courtesy of Rene Dahinden. Is there any chance this is from the second roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...