my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » That's Not FILMGUARD! (Page 5)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: That's Not FILMGUARD! Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-18-2003 11:28 PM                     Here are some results from a quick first impression evaluation of the new CPI ripoff to FilmGuard. Before anyone asks, this was a Deluxe print on Kodak 2383 stock. The lube is definitely not suitable for this application. The picture above as well as the next one show how goopy and thick it is. The cleaner was sprayed on a cloth and wiped on. The following pictures show how the film looks after the film has been coated, then wiped clean. The remaining film wasn't slick and lubricated, but had a tacky feel, similar to one of those little cups of pink tacky goo that office personnel smudge their fingers in to better be able to sift through paperwork. The coating would not wipe off and did not apply itself well. As anyone who has used FilmGuard knows, FG can be easily wiped off with a dry cloth without leaving a residue if so desired. This picture is another angle of the above. While the emulsion did not appear to suffer any immediate damage, the base was certainly not happy with this. Running through a projector, the added tackiness made the film chatter and caused some picture unsteadiness. Such a coating will also cause premature sprocket wear. This is "film done wrong". Since this mixture is something that CPI concocted on the fly a few weeks ago, it has not had any amount of testing via time which is where an even bigger concern comes into play for anyone using this on their prints. I am now starting some time experiments. So far, this looks like bad news to film. My major beef with this is that customers of CPI are being shipped this stuff when they are ordering FilmGuard, which reflects poorly on the real thing by unknowing users. (Check their website www.cinprod.com as they are still advertising it too. Just click on "products".) I want to make it very clear that this is NOT FilmGuard. Besides being what appears to be a cleaner that is damaging to the film, it also does blatantly violate the patent as it does not evaporate with any speed. With this there is no more doubt. CPI has broken federal laws in manufacturing and selling this product as well as causing forseeable film damage in the field. I have now lost all respect for Ron Purtee, Randy Baush and the crew at CPI, for besides them misleading their customers and shipping out this bad substitute mixture, they are also directly trying to copy a proven product that has governmental patent protection. This is no less of an offense than someone violating a copyright by bootlegging a movie. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it and CPI is directly guilty without further question. Shame on you Ron Purtee and shame on anyone supporting this company's illegal activities. If your dealer does not carry FilmGuard, there are certainly plenty of other options for film cleaner/lubricants out there. FG is by all means not the only choice, just don't say I didn't warn you about this one!  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-19-2003 02:01 AM                     Very good report and analysis, Brad. I think CPI got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar once to often.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-19-2003 09:31 AM                     Geez, I just checked out the CPI web site and couldn't find it there. They still have FilmGuard on there though. Also yall click on the people button and it still says Dave is there too, plus they still have my old e-mail address at GTS up as ell. Now we all know these not to be true..... Looks like Ron needs to do a bit of housecleaning on the ole site.... Brad, Keep us informed as to the progress of the lawsuit(s). Mark  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-19-2003 01:35 PM                     Brad -- Perhaps we could see a formal review of this stuff in the Reviews section after you have all of the other tests completed? =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Bruce McGee Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1776 From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular. Registered: Aug 1999 posted 05-19-2003 04:51 PM                     I'm beginning to think that maybe we'd better chill-out on this subject. If there is litigation, we dont want to say anything that could mess up the proceedings. My $.02...  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-19-2003 05:17 PM                     No need to Bruce. Everything I have posted is factual and everything else is merely comments and opinions on the subject. People have a right to know and they have a right to speak. I can also add at this point that I have had a container with a certain amount of this stuff open to the air and after 24 hours there has been no evaporation. Even if ALL of the chemicals were different, this is still a blatant violation of the patent.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-20-2003 01:46 PM                     Brad, you might want to double-check with your patent lawyer. As I understand it, prior to your patent application being published (or your patent being granted), you are not actually entitled to any patent protections. Once your patent is granted (or the application published), they would need to stop infringing. I don't see a published application for your patent. So while CPI's practice certainly appears ill-advised from a customer service perspective, as well as rude, I do not think they are violating federal patent protections. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-20-2003 04:02 PM                     John, that was actually the first thing discussed before the process even started. YES, it is covered. So long as "patent pending" is clearly stamped on the product, it is a would-be-criminal's responsibility to steer clear of what is covered. All Ron had to do was ask and I would have gladly told him, just like I went over the basics of the coverage here.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 05-20-2003 05:49 PM                    Well, how does that actually work? If someone has an idea and decides to market it they can search the patent database to make sure they aren't stepping on any toes. But when there is nothing published? In this case of course they are aware of your product as they sold it and by all accounts this is a deliberate attempt to copy it. But in general, for someone who never heard of the product whose patent is only pending, how do they avoid infringing? It would seem like they cannot.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-21-2003 08:08 AM                        An issued patent: Extremely long link A patent application: (URL is way too long for these forums. Until John provides a shorter one it will not be shown here.) [ 05-21-2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-29-2006 01:20 AM                 It has been 1103 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 05-29-2006 01:20 AM                     I remember reading this thread awhile back and was wondering if there had ever been an update as far as any litigation or what the longer term testing found out? Thanks.  |  IP: Logged William T. Parr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 823 From: Cedar Park, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-30-2006 08:40 AM                     Yes inquiring minds want to know.  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-07-2006 04:17 PM                        I notice that a certain company is still selling Film Guard and they are displaying the FilmGuard logo. Is this the real stuff or a knock-off?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-07-2006 04:22 PM                     Cinema Products International is not distributing real FilmGuard. It is a knockoff product that causes film damage in the long run. Anyone buying from them is getting scammed in more way than one. They are also supporting well known crooks in this industry. Fact, not opinion.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.