|
I've had three off-list queries in response to my
last post to the effect of 'do you know for sure that Fox Grandeur elements were
nitrate?'. I hope the senders won't think it antisocial to reply on-list,
and that those who aren't interested won't mind hitting the delete button.
My belief that they were is based mainly on a chapter on wide film in James
R. Cameron & John E. Rider, 'Sound Pictures & Troubleshooters Manual'
(Cameron Publishing Co., Manhattan Beach, NY, 1930):
This chapter describes the film stock as
'celluloid' (see p. 672) and states that Eastman Kodak manufactured it simply by
removing one of the cutting blades from a 35mm slitting machine. Unlike
today's 70mm Grandeur carried a 7mm wide optical soundtrack (the chapter states
that both VA and VD tracks were recorded using modified Mitchell sound cameras),
it had a four-perf pulldown with a slightly longer perforation pitch (.231"
as against .187" for 35mm), and, surprisingly, ran at 20fps.
If the stock was produced simply by making minor
modifications to existing mass-production lines then I wouldn't have thought
that it would be diacetate. Furthermore, given the brittleness of 1920s
safety stock, could it have withstood the mechanical stress of a 70mm projector
mechanism? As for the use of the word 'celluloid', I simply don't know if
it was used in 1930 like it is today, i.e. as a generic term meaning 'film
stock', or was specifically used to describe nitrate film. In the context
of a technical manual I'd be inclined to assume the latter.
The book stated that Fox Grandeur stock was only
manufactured by Eastman Kodak. Perhaps John Pytlak and/or someone else
from Kodak might be able to put an end to my speculation and tell us for sure
whether it was all nitrate or whether any safety bases were used?
Many thanks
Leo
Leo Enticknap
Director, Northern Region Film & Television Archive School of Arts and Media University of Teesside Middlesbrough TS1 3BA Tel. (01642) 384022 Fax (01642) 384099 Email ldge@u.genie.co.uk or l.enticknap@tees.ac.uk (first address is more reliable) |