Bill Munns Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I'm trying to identify a strange edge code I've found on four 100' loads filmed in 1967. Since I can't seem to get the image upload to work here in this forum, the image can be seen at this URL: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=29111&hl= Taking a wild guess, could it be something Fuji Film imbeds as a latent image in any of their stock? Thanks for any ideas. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Bill, it's an EK with a subset C running through part of the K. It's already been answered in the thread you refered us to, so I don't know why you're posting of it here. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Munns Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 When I posted it here, it had not been answered on the other forum. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted March 31, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted March 31, 2010 The copy that was made with the edges of the images ("camera code") masked off may have been made on a "lab Stock" which is different - perhaps in the Kodachrome family. In particular Kodak's own labs sometimes had stocks which were very uncomon in other labs. Kodak was also known for adding "processed by Kodak" when they processed some films, again much more common on Kodachrome. Your EKC symbol may have been an example of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Pritchard Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Kodak was also known for adding "processed by Kodak" when they processed some films, again much more common on Kodachrome. Your EKC symbol may have been an example of this? My investigations so far agree with Charles that this was imprinted by Kodak when processing Kodachrome. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I'm pretty sure that none of this has anything to do with proving or disproving Bigfoot, which is Bill's sole purpose. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Pritchard Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I'm pretty sure that none of this has anything to do with proving or disproving Bigfoot, which is Bill's sole purpose. . . To me it is an interesting query and I want to find the answer. I really don't understand your post ; it doesn't help or add to the discussion in any way. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now