Inside the Archive: the Lusitania film reel | BFI

[@TalairanPerigord]

Ms. Allum's nerdy enthusiasm for her work is quite charming and engaging. Thank you for this video.

[@electronicecstasy]

I never would have imagined that any amount of film would be recoverable from a shipwreck, especially after 67 years. This is incredible!

[@Lichtviech]

As an ex-worker of a german film lab that has closed down in 2013, this wonderful explanation brings tears to my eyes. Thank you so much!

[@neilsmoviechannel3199]

Great presentation, Louise. Fascinating

[@eherrmann01]

As photographer who still shoots film, I found this fascinating. Thank you for sharing this and for preserving this wonderful piece of history.

[@wiretamer5710]

I inherited about a hundred nitrate still shots by my Grandfather. All I can say is glass negatives rock, even if they are shattered to pieces. The range of degradation exhibited by nitrate film is mind blowing. The silver can disappear leaving a yellow ghost imprint of the image. Capturing the image requires a lot of imagination and stubbornness. Back lighting, Front lighting, Black backgrounds, White backgrounds. Mirrors. It's a lot of fun. Never worked on a motion picture. But, one advantage is the redundancy. With up to 20 frames per second, you are likely to be able to make a composite image of the background, and various other elements.

[@markstringer4227]

Enjoyed this presentation.Thank you

[@PRR5406]

The fact it was aboard an incredibly important ocean liner which was torpedoed in an outrageous situation, staggers me. The huge ship, the cargoes, the passengers and their belongings, lost in violence, yet here is one peculiar artifact from that event. Another reason to search these wrecks for historically important artifacts.

[@JohnKobaRuddy]

Outrageous?! Read real history.

[@connorpusey5912]

@@JohnKobaRuddy I’d say it was an outrageous situation. One of the largest, important ocean liners in the world, torpedoed within sight of land, having been promised an escort which never came, sinking in a mere 18 min with a heavy loss of life. I’d say that’s pretty outrageous lol.

[@Excession-h6e]

@@connorpusey5912 Of course it was outrageous, taken as an isolated incident and the reality for the victims. But there are two things far more outrageous. 1) The deception and the reason for it. 2) That people still believe a cynical psyop despite decades of verified debunking. Edit: Having written that, I realised, you must have a dog in the fight.

[@connorpusey5912]

@@Excession-h6e Could you please reiterate: what deception? Which cynical psyop? And what dog would I have in what fight?

[@Excession-h6e]

@connorpusey5912 either you know, in which case you're being cynical. Or you genuinely don't know, in which case my comments were brusque. I'm not going to spell it out, partly because yt will probably not allow it. I'm sure you can research it for yourself. The journey stars in NY with the Ashkanazi who wanted a homeland. The British guaranteed it in exchange for some muscle on a project they were involved in. The hapless Germans were fed specific information, always missing from the post mortem analysis.

[@Derpy1969]

At least the film couldn’t burst into flames underwater.

[@stevebengel1346]

Actually if something did ignite it, nitrate film can burn underwater

[@arfansthename]

it could actually, the nitrate forms a bubble of oxygen as it burns to keep the fire going

[@gladiammgtow4092]

Like an electric car.

[@Jack-dt9nu]

Love this. Would love whole series of the BFI Archive treasures

[@britishfilminstitute]

Stay tuned 👀

[@theregularhell]

Thats so cool even with the condition its in... Someone held this in their hands in the 1910s and weirdly enough, being shipwrecked may have given it a longer life span than if it had made it to dry land. It's like an incredibly delicate link from whoever last handled it way back when all the way to this video.

[@BetamaxFlippy]

You could always try that technique where they read charred scrolls of Herculaneum using highly sophysticated x-ray imaging, silver nitrate surely holds more detectable mass compared to ink.

[@robertharker]

Great video. Louise is and excellent presenter explaing a lot about issues with film preservation. Thanks!

[@zorka4098]

Wonderful intro to film restoration. Thank you BFI for the work you do preserving our past. Thanks, Louise, for your ebullient comments about this film. It is a shame it is not "currently" able to be restored - perhaps technology will catch up. I've heard late 19c recordings that were restored by scanning the grooves of the recording so perhaps the future will allow it to be once again able to be watched. 😀

[@britishfilminstitute]

Thanks for the lovely comment! We'll make sure we pass it onto Louise.

[@yannjref]

amazin work Louise

[@THOMMGB]

That was really interesting. Amazing that a film that was under the water for all those years would survive like that. But survive it did.

[@kidmohair8151]

prints of silent films do keep showing up in odd places. a decade or so ago, a number were found in an old movie house that was being torn down in the Yukon. and then a bit later some more were found in Siberia... this one may take the cake for "odd places", though.

[@whitelion7976]

Dear lady, you are a hero for the work you are doing. Shows that digital still can't make it as well. I had a lot of film cans long ago which I pulled from the basement of a soon to be demolished theatre in Belgium. Most were old news reels. Sold them together with the two ernemann projectors, amplifier and rewinding table. Carbon arc light. Beautiful machines.

[@WaterShowsProd]

Perhaps using a technique similar to the one used on Ther Herculaneum Scrolls might be a way to access images on that shrunken, hardened piece of film, so long as there are discernable layers.

[@sebastianprzybya5966]

It could potentially be way easier than the scrolls, due to a clear diffirence in elemental composition of the layers. The Herculaneum scrolls didn't offer such distinction, what remained was pretty much just carbon on top of more carbon.

[@martinhughes2549]

A process like that using a CT scan was used to scan a 16mm Telerecording ( Kinescope) of an episode of "Morecambe and Wise" from 1968. Recovered suffering from advanced Vinegar syndrome. It could not be unwound.

[@charlesyoung7436]

That particular piece of film is fascinating. After watching numerous videos of vehicles being recovered from years underwater, I wondered why the tires frequently come out looking like pentagons. Water pressure and shrinkage seems to produce a certain symmetry in immersed non solid circular objects.

[@runestone1337]

This was fantastic -- both educational and entertaining. Thanks Louise! 👏

[@alphabeets]

Folks, these damaged films don’t “unwind”. They have turned to essentially a solid piece of goo that if you mess with it would crumble to dust. She is a pro at this. Armchair commenters on KZbin are not going to be smarter than her regarding this. Give it up. Don’t you think she would love to be able to digitizing it if it were at all possible. It’s what she does.

[@katiethompson8922]

So cool to get a look inside the archives! Great video!

[@britishfilminstitute]

Thanks for watching!

[@taymur0804]

It really is unique and interesting that they managed to recover a film from the wreak

[@markgoddard2560]

A rather ambiguous title for the presentation. I thought it was a film of the Lusitania.

[@markstringer4227]

Fool

[@BalBaaBart]

@@markstringer4227 then I am a fool as well for I too thought it would be a film of the Lusitania, not recovered from it

[@TheCoastermann]

Blah blah blah blah

[@ActuallyHoudini]

they call the bible found in the the titanic "the titanic bible", are you shocked the cruisliner isn't mentioned in the verses?

[@BrookieCooki84]

@@ActuallyHoudini*oceanliner not cruise ship.

[@rickaust5887]

Extraordinary and really interesting. Thanks for the upload!

[@britishfilminstitute]

Thanks for watching!

[@alans.2735]

Fascinating, thankyou..

[@danielmkubacki]

How cool that this film is in a good of shape as it is. After being at the bottom of the sea so long.

[@KieranHighman]

Absolutely incredible story!

[@alext7538]

I bought some old 1930s home movies from an estate sale one time. I got the cans open and they were so horribly damaged that they were in worse shape than this one that had been at the bottom of the sea, couldn't even handle them without crumbling like dry leaves. I put them on ebay and sure enough someone bought them, swiftly. The family had saved them for 90 years (albeit poorly) so I felt a duty to give them one last chance. If I hadn't done so they definitely would (should?) have gone straight to the dumpster. I like to imagine some film preservationist genius bought them.

[@michaelmiller641]

You'd think that the emulsion would have softened, then separated from the base! That's amazing!

[@paulwomack5866]

It did?

[@neilbain8736]

It's amazing that the emulsion has remained. You'd think salt water and the corroding steel film can would have a horrendous effect on the film. I love how the Mitchell and Kenyon stock was discovered in Lancashire. It was in a bin in a shop basement. It's from around 1900. The quality is amazing, and the people in it are utterly relatable. They filmed locals in towns and for tracking shots would put the camera on a tram. I think because of my interest, that's how the BFI is my youtube algorithms and gets suggested every so often.

[@Akibatai00]

Very interesting video. Thank you!

[@britishfilminstitute]

Thanks for tuning in!

[@crosswired9]

This is so cool for real, when she said though it was flammable that's why we are being careful with it made me think it's gunna combust right there

[@supereliptic]

You guys need to tell James Cameron about the obstacles you’ve encountered when attempting to digitise that film. It’s old, it comes from a famous shipwreck that is infamous for dragging the USA into WW1… he would quite possibly be interested in helping you guys find a way to make it scannable again!

[@thekarmafarmer608]

Thank you. That was fascinating.

[@britishfilminstitute]

We're glad you enjoyed it!

[@FriedAudio]

I want a job like that. 🙂🎥

[@brj_han]

I'd enjoy a job like this, especially with today's equipment. I've saved a lot of my Dad's still photography, it'd be great to tackle stuff like this to keep it from getting lost forever...

[@dontbesodense]

3:37 inglorious basterds comes to mind

[@brickistic8188]

I'd love to have this job

[@rumblehat4357]

7:15 another possibility is for that particular piece of film it may have just been wound up and not on a core to begin with, and why it’s so shrunken and misshaped.

[@andrewmcfarland57]

Time to watch "Cinema Paradiso" again...🙂

[@garryferrington811]

One of the main factors affecting old black-and-white film is that quite a few labs didn't bother with hypo clearing as nobody would know the difference. That means not all the fix is removed and the film decays. I don't believe many people know that.

[@rumblehat4357]

I worked as a projectionist when Schindler’s List came out, and since the film was in B&W, it was deteriorating every time we showed it. The film was literally flaking causing dust which was a huge problem.

[@mathieuschuler366]

I think you could get a really nice camera and take high-quality photos of each frame, then splice the new photos together to make the film watchable

[@PhantomFilmAustralia]

I would bet that the shrunken core of the film could be salvaged. I had seen a documentary not long ago where a mass of pages stuck together were scanned in three-dimensions and digitally cross sectioned by the micrometer like a MRI and using a spherical coordinate system. Computer software took all of the information and formed a digital assembly. It's amazing at what can be achieved.

[@scrivener68]

I just noticed she's wearing a Letterkenny t-shirt, which is culturally awesome.

[@oldwebshooter]

Scan for the metal content of the film, like they did with Morecambe and Wise?

[@davidbrent8031]

How fascinating!

[@spookisghostly4619]

Imagine good 3d scanning becoming reasonably common and it being used to make this film somewhat playable again we're still in the infancy of 3D scanning but I genuinely think it's the future for things like this

[@Helderhugo]

The fact that the film is in this state is incredible.

[@connorpusey5912]

I know it’s ambitious, but what if you guys took high quality photographs of each frame and reconstructed the film using those photos? Even if an intact copy of the film is found later, the historical value of your restoration would still stand. Call it the “Lusitania print” lol.

[@bletheringfool]

This is why film as a medium should never die. I hope all the new Hollywood movies produced digitally are also copied onto film

[@tompoynton]

It would make sense from an archival point of view

[@ActuallyHoudini]

which is why i'm glad that the science for film has gotten far better. the estar base is truly remarkable in its near industructablity. once put a cut of it into a bottle of nail vanish remover for a week and it did not budge an inch. really impressive. film has gotten so much more reliable with the advent of technology.

[@monohedron9633]

Not to mention the fact, that even if you shoot in 35mm it still beats 4K easily with resolution. Therefore, you can squeeze a 4K scan out of it easily w/o upscale. There's a nice vid on how G. Lucas 'messed up' because of Star Wars's prequel trilogy only the oldest (1999 Phantom Menace) was shot on film while two others digitally, and now these two newer films suck ass on Blu-Ray as they have a far lower resolution than the Phantom Menace. And just imagine what can be obtained from 70mm negs, of which there's many. I think the "Bridge on the River Kwai" was shot on 70mm, I bet we'll keep seeing scans from it in 4K, 8K, 16K and 24K no hassle until the year 2100. Luckily some directors, as Tarantino, understand this well. Thing is, if you need to, you can easily digitize film if needed. Then you get a versatile digital file AND a film 'backup' (technically, the physical film original). But not the other way around!

[@bletheringfool]

@@monohedron9633 yes, I currently shoot super 8 and it is HD quality 3k, edit on my laptop

[@dfirth224]

This is why documents need to be copied to microfilm, even from digital masters. Digital can become corrupted and even erased. The microfilm will probably outlast digital. The Library of Congress website has digital copies made from microfilm records.

[@JustWowNick]

I hope in the future this can be scanned, seems to be still somewhat watchable.

[@andydetskas]

Incredible story. That shrunken piece of the film immediately made me think of the MRI + AI techniques they're using to "unroll" the carbonized papyrus scrolls from Herculaneum.

[@PictureHouseCinema]

I remember this film being recovered from the Lusitania and at the time it was said that it could never be played but it's amazing to see just how much of it survived. I've handled very bad film and reprinted them manually- literally by hand frame by frame as an animation process. I personally would make the effort to reprint The Thief And The Carpet.

[@HBHArtLife]

I was wondering about that, thinking that there might be a way to take still shots of each viable frame and then run them together, almost like a stop-motion film process. It might not be ideal, but it's a thought.

[@PictureHouseCinema]

@@HBHArtLife Agreed, I find it astonishing that they can't see past the conventional methods. I have a piece of nitrate that has shrunk into the shape of a bicycle mud guard but I still managed to rephotograph it to run as a movie sequence.

[@abagelmuppetstuff]

this is great shes very funny

[@hugogarro]

Que agradable señora 💟

[@trevortaylor5501]

Funny thing is it would be easy to scan from what I see. Mind you would have to scan every frame separately which would take time. Maybe someone in the office should contact those involved in the unrolling of the documents of pompei as they are using AI to gap together words but maybe pictures can be put together in the same way after scanning. Fascinating non the less.

[@dangilmore9724]

I've got nitro-cellulose still image negatives dating from 1900 - 1920 that, despite being stored poorly at times, are in perfect condition. Nitrocellulose base films can indeed spontaneously combust, so to speak. While the resulting fire is a hazard, the combustion byproducts (mainly hydrocyanic acid, which is a brownish gas) are highly lethal if inhaled.

[@laurdy]

I don't think it's possible in this case, but I wonder if it's possible to transfer the emulsion from its old (decomposing) base onto a new support such as polyester? My thought was to attach a temporary support to the front, dissolve away the decomposing nitrate base, adhere a new polyester support then dissolve away the temporary support leaving the old emulsion attached to a new support.

[@paulwomack5866]

I note with interest the efforts in virtually unrolling the Herculaneum papyri. If they can do *THAT*, the frames of your film should be relatively easy.

[@bletheringfool]

I hope that the technology does come along to scan the film

[@jasonflay8818]

The University of Kentucky has recently developed a process using MRI imaging and AI to decipher carbonized parchment from Pompeii that is way too brittle to unroll. I wonder if a similar process could be used to scan the reel without unrolling it to digitally bring back to life that film.

[@alphabeets]

I wish there no music in this. Just allow the speaker to speak without distraction and more sound over the top. It’s not needed.

[@CrazyBrosCael]

Has anyone tried to draw from the images to recreate parts of this film?

[@PrankZabba]

Reminds me of The TVO Archive.

[@mrnmrn1]

There must be a way to scan this. If there's no better option, just put the film on a light box, weigh it down with a thick piece of glass and take still images from each frame with a macro lens, edit it together, stabilize, reduce defects by averaging image data from neighboring frames. This would be a hell of a work with a full 90 minute movie, but this is probably less than 15 minutes, so I feel like it's not impossible. It would probably need like 3-5 shots from each frame so every part of the deformed frame would be in focus, then it needs to be somehow edited together into a single frame, while trying to comensate for the deformities.

[@Flossie-Doggy-David-6079]

No you cannot "weigh down" the celluloid - because it would crack and splinter very badly, as its so badly warped and fragile. You would have to photograph each frame many times, from many angles to capture the data/image. So yes, it could potentially be done, but at present its too costly. I think they are probably waiting for technology to improve?

[@britishfilminstitute]

Yes, there's every chance we could scan this print in the future but it's not currently something we have the technology to do.

[@petrberanek4230]

Yes, this movie is 15 minutes long. Problem is, those 15 minutes are on 5 reels. They have only 1 reel from 5, around 3 minutes of runtime.

[@BartSantello]

I'm not sure why the restorer said there are no scanning options. Two ways: Place the film between two glass plates and photograph digitally or film frame by frame.

[@alphabeets]

Gosh, don’t you think she and her colleagues who deal with this professionally on a daily basis maybe have thought of that.

[@sheismymom]

Wow

[@stevemuzak8526]

Maybe they should x-ray this film and unwind it digitally. I think that will be possible in the future.

[@petrberanek4230]

For everyone wondering if it should be possible to restore whole movie - no, it is not possible, as this is only one reel from five. Therefore it is only 20% of the movie, if restored by some unknown future miracle technology. But miracles do happen, someone can find another copy of this movie in his grand grandfather closet. Or find missing 4 reels in wreck of Lusitania.

[@deerfoxthunderteam1649]

As a person who wants to be a film maker, it hurts me to see a piece of film that can't be watched anymore. I'm happy that the reel is on the surface now, but it's sad that it can't be projected. People put so much time and effort into making that movie only for the reel to be sunken at the bottom of the ocean because of a conflict. Real shame

[@VioletMarie]

I still don’t understand why they can’t scan it!

[@bloodyhell8201]

​​@@VioletMariethe scanning machines necessitate the reel be at least wound-able, so it rurns through the machine - this movie would be pulverized

[@ThatBubbleMix]

it could be scanned frame by frame seperately

[@stuarnott]

In a few years a machine learning algorithm will be able to completely restore this. I'm excited for the use of AI & ML in film restoration.

[@adamberndt4190]

I also get shrinkage when sitting in the cold part of the ocean.

[@StudioPowerful]

If only they can figure out how to restore those film pictures taken during the sinking of the ship

[@fitzdizzel48]

Put it between glass and scan it...

[@randolphfriend8260]

💙

[@Chuby123]

Could they not individually scan each frame and the put it together at 25 fps?

[@alphabeets]

Damn, send them a letter with the idea. I’m sure they didn’t consider that. 😊 these films are one solid blob and do not unwrap. If you are Tory they would crumble into fine dust. Beyond the few frames she showed it is likely mostly a solid piece.

[@nickdiba7512]

I'm someone who adores film. Sadly this is the usual "analog is good, digital is bad". The reality is that the only way to preserve film via the analog route is by making copies, and you lose resolution with each generation (plus the contrast buildup, plus the stress the original has to endure with every copy). Digital stays original. You can make as many copies as you want, and copies of copies, and they are all originals. You can keep one of those copies in each of a hundred different countries, and it will survive wars and natural catastrophes. Today, you can scan film and capture information way beyond what present and future use there may ever be. The limits of digital are only of financial nature.

[@ActuallyHoudini]

Degredation of digital files is also an issue. Let's also not forget that automation of digital media is only as reliable as the machinery. If you crack open a hardrive, your data is gone. Forever. However, the degradation of quality with film duplication is rarely to the extent of digital media and with the current status of film quality in the uptick with extremely low ISO duplication film, leading the degradation being to a minimum. Estar base film is practically immortal and can be kept in storage for over a hundred years without extreme changes. For servers and digital files, you'll be lucky if it survives more than thirty years. Five if its in constant use. That's why organisations like CPC London and Kodak offer film that can have digital dater etched onto it like a more professional M-Disc.

[@nickdiba7512]

@@ActuallyHoudini That's why I talked about copies. You can produce one billion exact copies of a digital file. With film, you simply can't. Every copy requires a run into the machine. The billionth copy will be just noise. If you lose files, it's your fault. If you lose film, it's the films fault.

[@ActuallyHoudini]

@@nickdiba7512 I don't know if you're up to date with either sciences but the issue with digital is that its a fairly new medium that is known for failure but film has had 100+ years of advancement, with the most incredble examples of that advancement in the past twenty. I would reccomend actually reading up on the present day reliabillity of film, we are leagues ahead of the nitrate print just combusting. The ESTAR base is by far one of the most impressive advancements in film history along with the amazingly fine grain printing film that does in fact outlast digital in quality. I have tested the strength of ESTAR film compared to a professional harddrives and DCPs used by movie studios, guess which one survived the test? ESTAR base film. And again, duplication degradation is a thing of the past but digital degredation actually exists right now. Ones and zeros aren't unchangeable, however light is a very good standard. Unless you somehow do something really really stupid in the process, it won't look like white noise. It will look like an image. Not identical, correct. But not indecypherable noise after the third or forth print. That's why we have masters. If you lose files, it's because digital is difficult. If you lose film, how? It's on a reel.

[@garryferrington811]

So we are told. But...?

[@nickdiba7512]

@@garryferrington811 But?

[@thephilpott2194]

Being the only copy (albeit smashed to hell) justifies it being conserved and retained in archive. If there were other viable copies it would be little more than a curio. Always worth bearing in mind that some of the BFI funding comes from govt. grants and lottery funding though, so keeping something in a tin without grabbing as many images as possible and making them available to the public...would not be a long term solution in the opinion of the average bod on the street.

[@robcat2075]

That's a lost film! It may not be projectable but if it's possible to unroll that film, it's possible to get a digital image of every frame. Then send the series through image stabilization.

[@alphabeets]

Gosh I wonder if these professionals didn’t consider that.

[@robcat2075]

@@alphabeets They repeatedly claim not to have the necessary equipment. Get the reel to someone who does.

[@prismaticmarcus]

Why can't it be scanned?

[@Mrshoujo]

Not by automation anyway.

[@prismaticmarcus]

@@Mrshoujo of course not, but I don't see why each frame can't be captured individually. maybe it's just a resource Thing...

[@sebastianprzybya5966]

Because parts of it cannot be unwound. But, as was mentioned above, computer tomography might come in handy.

[@thinkbolt]

"It had an adverse effect on the film."

[@Conradlovesjoy]

I thought we’d get to see some of it…

[@wigwagstudios2474]

as awfully damaged as it is i'd still love to see an attempt at using a modern scanning technique, frame by frame slowly and snapping a pic, but the perferations are so bad that it might just not work

[@justinove7521]

You could probably 3D scan the film and then use AI to unwind and reform the film strip into its original shape

[@wormswithteeth]

Release the Lusitania cut.

[@napalmholocaust9093]

No gelatain coating to protect it? Maybe it is a conservation nightmare.

[@bdbobbydog]

This is very interesting but the music is very distracting. It feels like the music is competing to be heard over the person talking

[@wictimovgovonca320]

Survival instinct of film? Perhaps Louise has been sniffing too many chemicals at work. Very interesting find, and conservation effort.

[@Iconoclasher]

🤔 Why can't it be scanned? It's loose on the reels. Just a matter of gently guiding it into the scanner. It should be done at least for a backup copy.

[@williamneale7238]

each frame (and perf) is a different size and shape in all three dimensions. A normal scanner couldn't run it through.You would need a custom scanner that could run such a strangely shaped piece of film though it without damage, and capture the highly warped image without more distortion.

[@vvinniem8907]

I'm sure that print could be digitised using today's technology. Many other very old stock footage has been digitised and enhanced so why not this.

[@GadgetWusky]

Bro you can see the image on individual frames, why can’t you get a digital copy from that?

[@BarneyGoogle1950]

Why no clips/examples from the actual film?

[@britishfilminstitute]

The film is currently a lost title. We don't have any further information about it beyond this print, which is too damaged to scan or project using the technology available to us.

[@flyingo]

It can’t be scanned? Done one frame at a time, even on a rudimentary flat bed scanner could produce something. Give it a go!

[@chrisjeffries2322]

💋

[@MonsterHobbiesModelCarGarage]

Could someone take a digital picture of each frame and then get AI to "reconstruct it" in the computer and then run each frame through like a stop-motion movie?

[@Lion_McLionhead]

If only a robot could align & scan all the surviving frames

[@Dog.soldier1950]

The Celtic sea?

[@MJanovicable]

Irish.

[@martinhughes2549]

Yes, it's the area between Cornwall Southern Ireland and South Wales.

[@nikolausthomasgrohne4291]

The ocean liner shown at 01:09 minutes is the RMS Mauretania, not the RMS Lusitania. In a presentation about a passenger ship as historically significant as the Lusitania, how come the British Film Institute can’t get the footage right?

[@maha.albadrawi]

Hi there, I'm the editor of this video. That piece of footage was taken from a 1915 Gaumont-British newsreel called 'The Sinking of the Lusitania', which you can watch for free on BFI Player. The blurb on the film states that it features "older footage of the formerly glorious liner on the ocean (followed by) poignant scenes of the aftermath", so I am pretty confident that this is the correct ship.

[@nikolausthomasgrohne4291]

@@maha.albadrawi Hi there, I have been fascinated with the Lusitania for the past 15 years. I also run a page on FB to raise awareness for the preservation of her wreck. One of the major differences between Lusitania and her sister Mauretania was the design of ventilators on top of the ships’ superstructure: Mauretania had white cowl vents, and Lusitania had brown oil-drum shaped vents with lids. In the video clip, you can see a lot of white “gooseneck” cowl vents, so it definitely is the Mauretania, irrespective of what the old newsreel from 1915 stated.

[@nikolausthomasgrohne4291]

I would be happy to help identify footage of the Lusitania if you like.

[@sgtalstrafficticketblog2452]

7:30 how much footage time was lost in that solid core of shrunken film? Was that the end of the film or leader blank footage that tails then end? Was something in there lost a a result? Also: is there another copy of this film anywhere on earth known?

[@petrberanek4230]

@@sgtalstrafficticketblog2452 This one reel is around 3 minutes, whole movies is around 15 minutes. Not counting shrunken part, 4 of 5 reels are still missing. There is no other known copy except 4 missing reels at same place, where this one was discovered.

[@FanDancer]

The Celtic sea