Film-Tech Cinema Systems
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   » Flaming Film Flim Flam (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Flaming Film Flim Flam
Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 01-27-2002 10:38 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
If anyone really wants to see the "outtakes", I suppose we can assemble a fairly lengthy download of Joe going through 4 lighters of trying to get them to light, along with lots of "colorful metaphores" courtesy of Joe in his anguish. I don't think everyone would find it as funny as it sounds on paper though. Joe ended up burning his thumb slightly in the process and got a noticeable blister from all the failed attempts! The reason we zoomed in after his intro was because the intros took too long to shoot. When Joe would mess up his ad-libbing dialogue, we would have to re-pour the contents of the bowl back into the container and reset for the entire shot. Thus, when we got a good take, it was MUCH easier to just zoom in for a smooth cut. This also provided a clearer demonstration on these small Quicktime downloads for viewers to see. Just imagine that wide shot of the film burning. It would've been so small the download would have been a waste of time. Also, I don't care for the inferrment that either myself or Joe faked that video. We absolutely did not.

Obviously experiments of this nature will vary slightly from batch to batch of FilmGuard, different film stocks, processing chemicals, different labs, lab waxing and so forth. Still, in the end the bottom line to be proven here is that of all "common" booth items, FilmGuard is the least flammable. So any booth using these "common" items should not have any problem with FilmGuard. Any booth that does not allow anything that will burn when a direct flame is put to it should not even be running film.

For those who are as crazy as we are, gather these common items from a projection room and see for yourself:
FilmGuard
XeKote
Isoprophal alcohol
Generic film cleaner (the fast evaporating kind)
WD-40
Johnson's Paste Wax
Projector oil

Now go out into an open area in the parking lot where nothing anywhere near can possibly catch on fire and see for yourself which is the least flammable. That is the point to be made here, along with the fact that film DOES burn straight out of the lab DRY. Also the important thing to take note of here is that of all these commonly found items, FilmGuard burns the LEAST of them all. If you are not going to test all or most of of these items, don't even bother with the comparison test.

DISCLAIMER: Anyone who believes we faked the video download above and is insistent on performing their own experiments, please use common sense and make sure there is a second person, say 20 feet away with a fire extinguisher in case you do something stupid or something goes up more than you thought! Also, use just a TINY BIT of whatever you are going to burn for safety's sake. (Soaking 2-4 frames should be more than sufficient.) Most importantly, perform the test holding the film the exact same way that Joe did in the video. Do NOT get a strip of film and let gravity pull it downward while you hold the top of it and light it at the bottom. This is just begging for you to burn your hand off since fire burns upwards! Hold a short piece of film (6-8 inches) upright with your hand at the bottom (fold the film if you have to in order to make it stiff) and light the TOP edge and let it burn down like a candle for safety.

Also take note of the most obvious aspect of this...if the building is already burning down from whatever cause, the prints are toast anyway! Other than a building fire, there is no time that a print will ever be exposed to DIRECT FLAME like this anyway. Worst case senario is the film will brain wrap (although that's extremely rare with a FilmGuarded print) and the film will "melt" in the gate as we have all seen many times in the past. Even with a 7000 watt bulb and a piece of film drenched in FilmGuard, it will not ignite.

Now for silliness, will a PTR burn???


 |  IP: Logged

Steven Gorsky
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 146
From: Frederick, MD, USA
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 01-27-2002 11:01 PM      Profile for Steven Gorsky   Author's Homepage   Email Steven Gorsky   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why not include a copy of the MSDS with FilmGuard, and make it available for download.

Steven Gorsky

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 01-27-2002 11:20 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Steven,

Why?

Reason #1 because that is one more thing that would have to be added to each kit. We are trying to keep it as basic as possible to keep costs down.

Reason #2 because most people do not know how to interpret an MSDS sheet and have never seen one.

Reason #3 because the dealer who sold you the product has them readily available just by asking for one, plus we have an email address printed on each bottle that you can just request one via email. Other than the WD-40 company (which is by far too large of a company to deal with individual people for such requests), I don't know of any product that is found in a projection booth that actually keeps MSDS sheets online for download. Like I said, many people will misinterpret what they read and "freak out", so it's actually better in my opinion to send them out as requested so any questions that arise may be addressed directly.

Do you have MSDS sheets for all of the items in your booth? (Some states actually require this, but not many.) Have you ever read an MSDS sheet? (Like I said, most people have not.) Regardless, if you want one, just ask.



 |  IP: Logged

Ethan Harper
E-dawggg!!!

Posts: 325
From: Plano, TX, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 01-28-2002 12:48 AM      Profile for Ethan Harper   Email Ethan Harper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark,
I know of the company that has banned FilmGuard. The problem here is not customer satisfaction, it is the slanderous remarks that this one tech had made about FilmGuard. Right when FilmGuard went out on the market, someone in the company lied and said that FilmGuard melts prints. I was the only one in that company who was testing it at the time and can positively state that no prints have been melted. For a while a lot of these theaters began to buy FilmGuard under the table so they could improve their presentations. They did not want to fall victim of the reputation that that particular chain had on presentations. Even the GM's were seeing the positive outcome of this product, one GM was even requesting that I put FilmGuard on certain big name titles. One tech from this company was skeptical at first but later came up to me and admitted that it was a great product. I also know of this certain tech (JDR) in particular and ever since FilmGuard came out he has completely dogged it. Why? I have no clue. He said that it ruins the focus on all prints when later that was proved to be a projector problem, and now this. This being the same guy who uses lighter fluid to clean policy trailers. If only he did the same demonstration with rubbing alcohol since he trains to use that to clean out the projectors over there, than rubbing alcohol would be banned too. Now because of his demonstration, FilmGuard is completely banned from this chain. I feel sorry for those projectionists who really do care about their presentation and want to make it better but now can't. I also know somebody that got fired because of this tech's attitude. So apparently he will have you fired if you do something to improve the presentation. That is nonsense. The truth is that the company is not able to see all sides of FilmGuard because of this tech. It is not a matter of customer satisfaction. All of the theaters that were using FilmGuard were MORE than satisfied. I have seen how Brad handles his business. I know that he does everything in his power to please a customer. I don't question his customer service performance one bit. This is not a case of customer service, it is a case of one person slandering FilmGuard for whatever reason. If anything, Brad is being polite by not prosecuting against this person for slander or mentioning the company's name out of respect he has for this company. I dare them to come out and really see all aspects of FilmGuard and the products they currently use. If that were the case, film would never be allowed in the booth due to the ability of it to ignite when a flame is put to it.

 |  IP: Logged

Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-28-2002 01:47 AM      Profile for Jason Burroughs   Email Jason Burroughs   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Having worked with this company and working with several of their technicians, their actions do not suprise me in the least. The act of blaming annother/product on a problem that they have failed to resolve themselves is indicitive of serveral of their "technicians"

After opening one of their theatres and receveing mass complaints about the sound quality (not the volume) and trying to work with the "technician" that did the installation, we went round and round with potential causes, from amplifiers, crossovers, to someone screwing with the sound system. When calling out a 3rd party technician to resolve an unrelated emergency issue, we aske him to take a look at some of the sound problems, low and behold only 5 out of 20 auditoriums had ever been eq'ed. They only thing that had been done was levels adjusted (by the staff at HIS direction). Of course instead of fixing the problem or admitting that the problem was his fault to begin with, he blamed it on the staff. (Keep in mind no one ever actually EQ anything to begin with). That technician "trained" this tech everyone is having problems with today, and why their presentation continues to be hampered.


 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-28-2002 01:51 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry, did you say LIGHTER FLUID?

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-28-2002 02:07 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steven: Another argument against just putting an MSDS sheet in each box is that for the purposes of satisfying health and safety regulations, they only do the job in the US. Other countries have similar laws that require you to keep a similar file of information about chemicals used in the workplace, but in some cases they need to be presented in a different form. Furthermore these regulations change quite often and so it makes sense that local resellers and distributors keep information sheets available which satisfy local requirements.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-28-2002 05:08 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad is right, I got an MSDS sheet for a chemical cleaner/lubricant for electrical contacts called BLUE STUFF. Now I consider myself a farily level-headed guy with a decent scientific approach to things in general, but I only got half way through the three pages and I was ready to call in Emergency Rescue and bury the stuff in a HAZMAT bomb hole out in the Brooklyn Flatlands. It's like when you start reading the countindications on medicines....you would rather suffer the complaint than go near anything with that many scary sideffects. Besides, who has MSDS sheets about anything else in the booth? We have a half dozen chemicals that we use regularly and I've never seen a sheet on any of them (and to tell the truth, now don't care to). How come all of a sudden FilmGuard has to supply then?

I think posting this stuff for general consumption for people who do not know how to interpret it would not make good business sense.


 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 01-28-2002 08:46 AM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
MSDS sheets can be over-the-top in that any possible danger should be included. My favorite is the MSDS for Comet powdered cleanser, which notes that it can cause silicosis. I sent a memo out to my managers at the time warning them "Don't snort the Comet!!"

OTOH, I don't agree with the idea of keeping MSDS hidden away. If a child were to swallow a liquid, it could be vital to have quick access to the information on the sheet. I don't think I would be able to stomach a kid dying or having permanent damage because of such a policy. If one does have that policy, IMO a poison control center should have the MSDS info and there should be an indelible phone number for that center on the containers. Phone numbers to a business or address of a website aren't sufficient because of the possible delays in getting the info.

FWIW, I haven't seen the film-guard MSDS and have no idea if it is even poisonous, although I must assume so in the absence of that information. I just am of the opinion that the safety of kids trumps most other concerns. Industrial chemicals can find their way into the home, and folks with super 8, 16mm or 35mm home movies probably already have small quantities of film-guard in their houses.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-28-2002 09:19 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At the last cinema I worked all the nominated first aiders were shown the location of and issued keys providing access to the file of information which any employer is required to compile and maintain under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations, for precisely that reason. A COSHH data sheet for a substance doesn't just contain the results of a technical examination as to its chemical composition, but also instructions to be followed in the event of particular types of accident - e.g. contact with skin, contact with eyes, ingestion, accidently mixed with other substances causing the emission of toxic fumes, and so on.

However, that file is kept out of sight of people who have not been taught to correctly interpret the information it contains. Almost all substances are dangerous/lethal if misused. For example, water can kill you and it's possible to drown with a surprisingly small amount, and washing up liquid will kill you (the enzymes in it break down the stomach lining) if swallowed in any significant quantity.

Right I'm off to the pub for a long, cool Filmguard on the rocks...

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 01-28-2002 09:45 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) (or equivalent documentation for other countries) for Kodak products are available on the Kodak Website:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/hse/prodSearchMSDS.jhtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 01-28-2002 10:01 AM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I haven't downloaded any version of the video. I'm still on dial-up and I have NO patience.

Many fellow pinheads accused me of faking the J-Wax pic. They just knew I poured gasoline or lighter fluid in that can to get it to burn that well. Nothing I said was going to change their minds. People have become cynical, tend to see conspiracy or deception everywhere. I blame The X-Files .

Re: Lighter fluid. Naphtha-based (sp?) lighter fluid (i.e. Ronsonol) is a great product for removing gummy residue from smooth hard surfaces. Seems a little harsh for use on film though.

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...


 |  IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-28-2002 10:24 AM      Profile for Greg Mueller   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Mueller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dave
I use 100% Naptha for cleaning the tape gunk off the film and have for some time. I used Ronsonol until I found a source of pure Naptha. It works great and is relatively cheap. I don't smoke when I use it. But then I don't smoke when I put gasoline in the car or use acetone to clean stuff with or for that matter anyother time. I swear that some day babies will be born incased in styrofoam (which is pretty flamable) and people will live out their lives in a padded small room, so they don't have to think or be responsible for their actions.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-28-2002 01:05 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe,

Thanks, I'll check that out. I am not on that machine right now so can't verify if it has QT or not (I thought it did) but you are right, the file was trying to play on Windows Media Player.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   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.