Identifying sound film edge code

[Min young Park]

Hello, I am Min. I work as a film sound restorer in Korea.

I need your help with identifying sound film edge code. Could you share your knowledge with me? There is information about the film.


The film Title: <Madame Freedom> (1956, Han Hyung-mo, South Korea)

The checking points are below.

1) Different sound film stock manufacture : R01 is Kodak, the other rolls are Dupont
Actually, I did not find this code 2022-09-24 13.25.37.png on the Kodak chart, this symbol might be printed wrong. Have you ever seen this code? And what meaning of the slip code?

2022-09-24 13.21.30.pngR01
2022-09-24 13.22.48.pngR02-R11


2) Different sound scanned quality: R01 has a higher noise base, and deterioration(double side track)
The others sound clear and good than R01(one side track)


Considering the film code, it could be assumed that R01 was manufactured in 1939,1959,1979, and the R02-R11 was manufactured in 1946.
So I guess based on the film's release date(1956), R02-R11 might sound negative, R01 might be the next generation than R02-R11.

What do you think? If you give me some advice, it would be really helpful to me.
Thank you so much.


These are the code that I referenced.
https://erikpiil.files.wordpress.com...ntedgecode.pdf (Dupont)

[Leo Enticknap]

Something weird is happening here. I also have 39, 59, and 79, for two circles (I think we can ignore the vertical bar - it's not mentioned on any Kodak chart I have):

kodak_date_codes.PNG
1959 is out, because that would meant that the stock was manufactured three years after the movie was made. If this is a Kodak element manufactured in 1939, I'm pretty certain that it has to be nitrate: Kodak did not introduce any 35mm cellulose triacetate safety stock until 1948, and I'm 99.9% sure that they never manufactured sound negative stock on earlier safety bases (diacetate and propionate, which Kodak did manufacture for small gauge pre-1948, and in small quantities for 35mm release print stock - for things like ads and snipes, where it was desired to ship small reels in the regular mail). But yet, in Europe and America at any rate, nitrate had completely gone from mainstream movie industry use by 1956. Rumors persist that it continued in use in the USSR and China much later (including 16mm nitrate in China: I have personally handled a 16mm nitrate print of a Chinese movie from 1948, so I know that it was made): I don't know about South Korea. Unless this is not a sound camera original negative and this stock mark is also contact printed from another element, I can only assume that this production was using 16-year old nitrate sound negative stock to shoot the soundtrack.

Is this sound neg element actually nitrate?

This is all I have for DuPont:

dupont.PNG
I'm guessing that the single edge code on your elements is printed through from an earlier generation; single circle = 1956, which squares with the year of production.

I can't explain the poor audio quality of R01. The only thing that might have made sense is if this was the negative image of an RCA Duplex track:

RCA_Duples.PNG

These were exposed using ultra-violet light in the sound camera onto negative stock that was sensitized to UV light, in order to boost the signal to noise ratio. Prints of RCA Duplex tracks require an incandescent exciter bulb of a specific color temperature type to sound their best in the cinema. They sound particularly bad played by a red LED, but astonishingly good with a white LED.

But R01 isn't - it's regular dual bliateral. If there has been some stock shrinkage, try adjusting the alignment and azimuth of the optical cell you're using to read the track, maybe?

[Jim Cassedy]

(Edited Quote)

These were exposed using ultra-violet light...... in order to boost the signal to noise ratio.

RCA began using ultra-violet light in its' sound recorders in late 1935.
The results were not only increased s/n ratio, but better frequency response since the
shorter wavelength UV light was able to resolve hi-frequency sound-wave peaks better
on the film. The film stock & negative emulsions at the time absorbed UV light with very
little internal halation, or 'image spread' which also helped improve overall S/N ratio &
frequency response. Of course all of this could be nullified by poor alignment or dirt in
the reproducing optics- - but the UV light was a big leap in optical recording progress.
I think, at first, if I recall, optical track negatives were recorded on regular positive
print stock because of its' finer grain. But around the same time RCA began changing
all their optical recording systems to UV light, KODAK began to distribute a film stock
specifically designed for UV track recording.

This image from "MOTION PICTURE SOUND RECORDING"
(1947) has also been reproduced in several other publications.
It shows a test tone recorded with white light on the left, and
UV light on the right. You can clearly see the UV track has
much better resolution and less intermodulation distortion

UV_Optical.jpg
-jc-

[Min young Park]

[/QUOTE] Is this sound neg element actually nitrate?[/QUOTE]
= The R01(Kodak) film is not nitrate. It is a safety film.
3.png

[/QUOTE] But R01 isn't - it's regular dual bliateral. If there has been some stock shrinkage, try adjusting the alignment and azimuth of the optical cell you're using to read the track, maybe?
= Yes, it is regular dual bilateral. I did not think about checking the adjustment of alignment and azimuth, I will check it again.

I'm glad to know that the vertical pattern on the edges of the Kodak film is a code that doesn't exist. It became a clue to the year of manufacture of the film and the date of the film's release.
Thank you so much for your reply!


Warm wishes
Min

[Leo Enticknap]

If R01 is not nitrate, the only explanation for that stock mark I can think of is that this element does not date from the original production, but that a new audio negative for reel 1 was struck 3 or 23 years later: maybe a slightly different mix for TV broadcast, or an earlier neg was worn out from repeated printing? If it's on safety base and with that stock mark, it can't have been created during the original post-production phase of a movie released in 1956.

[Min young Park]

If R01 is not nitrate, the only explanation for that stock mark I can think of is that this element does not date from the original production, but that a new audio negative for reel 1 was struck 3 or 23 years later: maybe a slightly different mix for TV broadcast, or an earlier neg was worn out from repeated printing? If it's on safety base and with that stock mark, it can't have been created during the original post-production phase of a movie released in 1956.

Yes. I agree that this element does not date from the original production.
I knew histories of where the film came from and how this film was acquired, unfortunately, there was no comment on why only R1 of the sound negative stock was different from other reels. So I started searching for information on the film edge code. Eventually, I ended up having a guess that the real sound negative of R01(Dupont) was lost. And then existing R01(Kodak) for other purposes might take place for surviving element with R02-R11(Dupont).

I am not sure if my guess would be wrong or maybe similar, but it is an honor to share with you.

[Leo Enticknap]

One possible reason might be an accident to reel 1 - for example, that caused perforation damage - and then either it was duplicated on a printer that can cope with damaged perfs (e.g. a Matipo), or a new sound neg was shot from the original final mix magnetic reel. Another might be censorship. From my projectionist days in England I remember a few prints in which one reel was on different stock from the others, because the release prints had been imported from the USA once the run there was over. The UK censors then required changes in order for the movie to get, say, a 12 or a 15 certificate, meaning that all the reel 2s had to be reprinted in London (for example). Are you aware of multiple versions of this movie (say, theatrical and TV), with differences in the first 10 minutes? That might be a clue.

This is all pure speculation, but it would be interesting if you could get to the bottom of it!

[Jack Theakston]

The line after the code and the distance from it indicate what quarter of the year the stock was produced.

[Jim Cassedy]

[/QUOTE] Is this sound neg element actually nitrate?[/QUOTE]

Aside from the usually obvious odor, KODAK and DuPont clearly edge
labeled their safety and nitrate film stocks. Also, on KODAK safety film
stock, the frame marking 'ticks' between every 4th perforation ran parallel
to the edge of the film. On nitrate film, the frame ticks were perpendicular
to the edge of the film.

Using The Photo From An Earlier Post,
I've Simulated The Nitrate Film Marks
Note The Difference In The 'Tick Marks'
NitrateFilm_ID.jpg
I've also seen some nitrate stock that has the frame-ticks as
small,thin vertical lines, every 4th perf at the very outer edge
and perpendicular to it