Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What is Film-Guard? (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: What is Film-Guard?
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 05-16-2001 03:01 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
During Kodak's development of PTR film cleaning technology over ten years ago, we ran extensive testing in-house, and in theatres. During the first few runs of a new print, the PTRs would load with dirt from the perforations and edge of the print, where the scuffing from the lab printers and processors generated some debris. But after about five runs, the PTRs were pretty clean after running a feature, as was the print.

Likewise, a used print that was really dirty would load up the PTRs after a few reels, making them less effective. But after several runs, most of the dirt was removed.

PTRs are best used as an on-line cleaner, used for every showing of the print (much as IMAX uses them). As noted, they have the advantage of being very low risk (no rubbing contact --- a media cleaner can act like sandpaper if it picks up abrasive dirt particles) and not leaving any foreign material on the film. They are not the only way to clean film, but IMHO, they are a GOOD way.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-16-2001 04:11 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
While I must say that I prefer FilmGuard over PTR's, I have actually had one good experience with the sticky rollers.

It was with out replacement print of "Titanic". Our other print got so dirty that either Paramount or Mann automatically ordered us a new one. We used PTR's quite a bit on those prints, which were brand new, yet they still got very dirty. The new print was used, but in excellent condition. I put PTRs on it for the first few runs and they took off a minimal amount of dirt. After that they would not remove anything for each subsequent run. I really don't know how to explain this, unless I got a print that had previously been FilmGuarded (P5'd) during Brad's test phase.

Now that I think of it, that may have been the case, as Brad did have several test theaters at the time.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-16-2001 04:48 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Couldn't have happened Joe. There were no test theaters before yours anywhere near the Colorado depot. Also, there were only two theaters that were test theaters that ran Titanic and those prints played for 5 and 6 months respectively at each theater (one being a 70mm print), plus I know which theater both of them ended up being couried to on their final nights.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-16-2001 04:55 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder why that print was so clean and stayed so clean? It certainly wasn't normal. City of Angels... that was normal! We used PTRs on it religiously and it got so dirty that there was more black then picture!

Must have been a fluke.


 |  IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

- posted 05-17-2001 09:39 AM      Profile for Jeffry L. Johnson   Author's Homepage   Email Jeffry L. Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
PTR's work better than nothing at all. Back when we had major shedding or scuffing problems (Triathlon), an example that immediately jumps to mind is _As Good as It Gets_, the "black snow" on screen at reel joins was extremely distracting. I started using PTR's. The PTR's really cleaned up the particles on the prints. PTR's do not make the print worse than no cleaner at all.

Yes, PTR's won't instantly clean a print. But PTR's work very nicely if you use them every show.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-17-2001 09:44 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John,
I am not against PTR's at all. They definately have their place in the industry. I just feel that with the advent of Filmguard they are not of much use in day to day theater booth operation anymore. They require cleaning(frequently) and this takes effort on the part of the booth crew. Most booth crews seem to put forth as little effort as they can and since Filmguard is less effort to use and does other things to make their job easier it is now the prefered thing at least in my area. Indeed Filmguard has made runnable prints out of junk prints at theatres around here. Also remember that in the mountain states there is more than normal dust than other areas have to deal with. I can only say that with Filmguard my customers tell me they are batting 100 but with PTR's its 50/50 as to weather it will make any difference at all.
I do not however reccommend Film-Guard for use on Studio prints and old I.B. Tech stuff that is extremely valualable until more is known about it.
Mark @ GTS


 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-17-2001 11:31 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark,

I've had tests going on now for 12 years on old IB tech prints, magnetic striped prints and just about everything else (except nitrate) with perfect results. It is safe to use.

On one of a kind studio vault prints (which most people will not handle), I would agree that the safest thing to do is not clean those in any manner and let a professional lab do it.

 |  IP: Logged

John Schulien
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 206
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 05-17-2001 12:22 PM      Profile for John Schulien   Email John Schulien   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad -- please elaborate. You've never tried FilmGuard on nitrate, or you've used FilmGuard on nitrate with imperfect results?

I ask because I've been making digital scans of individual frames of old nitrate clips, and I've found that FilmGuard does an amazing job of eliminating *all* of the rain on old, heavily worn film. I have a couple of "before" and "after" scans on my home computer that I'll try and remember to bring in and post.

I'm only applying it to single frames, and I've been wiping it off immediately afterwards with fast-evaporating film cleaner, but if there's some reason that I shouldn't be using FilmGuard on nitrate then I'd appreciate knowing.

Thanks - John

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-17-2001 12:55 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, I should've worded that better. I have never tested FG on nitrate film because I have never been in possession of any. I have tested it on basically every other kind of film stock and have had perfect results on everything, and it is safe to use. I do agree with Mark above though on not using any form of film cleaning on vault prints, that they should only be cleaned by a lab.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-17-2001 02:23 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad,
I have a number of valualable I.B. prints but I'd never consider putting anything on them unless its an inert cleaner that evaporates and leaves nothing at all on the film. The problem with these solvents is that most of the fumes are inhaled by whoever is doing the cleaning. SO IMHO I would rather have these professionally cleaned if they were real dirty. I once had an I.B. of a very famous Hitchcock film and when I sold it the buyer, who is a famous film restoration person was concerned that it had not been cleaned or treaded in any way. Fortunately it had not. For this sort of thing I always tell customers its at your own risk.
Personally, I don't think 12 years is long enough for this sort of test on this type of film. It should really probably be done like someone like Kodak in a controled lab where they are able to do accellerated testing. There were some cleaners that could actually make the dyes bleed a bit if you were not careful. I can't remember the names off hand though. Filmreneu or something like that was one of them.
I absolutely agree with you on the studio stuff.
Mark @ GTS


 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 05-17-2001 02:42 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have seen prints where projector oil had been used as a "lubricant". Not only did the oily deposits show up on the screen as streakiness and "mottle", the oil was able to penetrate into the slighty abraded areas of the emulsion and leach out the oil-soluble dyes. After awhile, the areas of dye loss showed up as tiny green or yellow spots on the screen (especially in dark areas that received the most radiant energy during projection), and wiping the oily surface of the film with a white tissue showed a distinct pink coloration from the magenta dye that had been leached from the film by the oil.

Here is what SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151 "Lubrication of 35-mm Motion-Picture Prints for Projection" has to say:
____________________________________________

4.2 Unsuitable lubricants
The lubricant and solvent used should have no
adverse effect on the film, and should be effective in
prolonging the projection life of the print. Mineral oils
(motor oil, projector oil) may dissolve and leach out
the oil-soluble dyes in the film, and should not be
used. Nonvolatile oils (mineral or silicone) may cause
mottle or undesirable sticking together of the film
surfaces, which may cause dirt particles to adhere
to the film. Some materials may attack the film base
or emulsion, or have an adverse effect on image
stability or projection life. Avoid using solvents that
are flammable or explosive, or that pose a health or
environmental hazard (e.g., benzene or carbon
tetrachloride).
____________________________________________

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 |  IP: Logged

Mike Judge
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 05-17-2001 04:04 PM      Profile for Mike Judge   Email Mike Judge   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Manager operators and construction dust that's all I'm going to say. Film-guard is a blessing in my booth. I'm definetly Pro Film-Guard.

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 05-17-2001 05:39 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark, humorous as it may seem, those "treated" prints your friend was so worried about actually were cleaned by film laboratories. Still, I won't argue the point that if an individual ownes a one-of-a-kind print that is worth a ton of money (or just for preservation elements) that the call is up to them. I don't think that any film cleaning solvent or apparatus comes with a guarantee that it won't harm the film after 50 years. Still, with 12 years now in testing, many of the identical batches of film that were stored dry are now unrunnable whereas the FG copies still run just fine with no defects. Granted these tests have been performed under very bad conditions (like my mega hot Texas garage and sealing films in cans in the garage), but thus far I have not had one FG print show signs of deterioration. Hence my comments above.


 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 05-18-2001 06:32 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Until about five years ago, most film labs used 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) as the film cleaning solvent in their ultrasonic film cleaners. It was also the most commonly used solvent in proprietary film cleaning/lubricating liquids sold to theatres and film exchanges. The Montreal Protocol has banned the manufacture of this solvent because it can contribute to depletion the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. Today, many labs use tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), which is a solvent long used by the dry cleaning industry. Other solvents are also being used. Here is a link to information about film cleaning solvents:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/environment/solvent.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-18-2001 09:10 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm assuming that Brad was referring to the "treatment" process that was used in the early 1980s for many IB Tech prints. Apparently, it worked really well at reducing visible scratches and physical film damage, but also tended to cause the prints to turn vinegar. I have a few prints like this and they are indeed stunningly beautiful on screen, but they're sufficiently warped that they don't focus properly across the frame and don't take up evenly even with large-hub reels and the takeup tension cranked up.

I don't know much about the process itself. Maybe someone else does. I do know that it's not the standard "film cleaning" process that is used for negative stock and wet-gate printing, which (along with now-illegal stuff like Vitafilm) is apparently safe.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.