|  IP: Logged

1. Seeing that the print, although it has fantastic color and picture quality, is beginning to get curly and warpy (NO smell however), and from the results of the tests Brad has done, I figured that a good FilmGuard treatment can't hurt anything... it isnt as if I am FG-ing an original nitrate IB GWTW...

2. The print owner gave his OK to apply the [FilmGuard laden] cleaner. He also uses FG in the theatre he co-owns.

Brad: Perhaps you might want to remind us all of the tests you have performed and their results?

For instance, if you get Casablanca from Turner, it will be a recent print. Additionally, replacement reels for new prints of rep titles are often struck.

And since the runs are small, they don't like platters.

http://www.geocities.com/rotoflex/misc/nplatt.htm

I do agree that you have to be a lot more careful with original (or as near to original as are extant) elements than with release prints. However, even originals are treated with some chemicals: for example, archives ultrasonically clean, rewash and polish camera negatives before copying, a process which involves 1,1,1,trichloroethane and acetone (and probably several other chemicals that I'm not remembering). Other chemical treatments are used to reduce scratching if an archive feels that the risk of doing this is outweighed by the chance of a better picture from contact printing than could be obtained by wet gate.

However, all of these chemicals were systematically tested by archives and university research labs before they were used for this purpose, with the results suggesting that the benefits outweighed the risks. So I wouldn't be against the use of FG on archival masters in principle, but I would want the endorsement of a major player in the field (e.g. the International Federation of Film Archives, or AMIA) before I did so myself.