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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » filmguard vs. PTRs (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: filmguard vs. PTRs Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 04-12-2004 04:02 PM                        Brad/John, You are both sides of the battle and I would say you both have put your points across. Film Guard is something that im sure makes lots of money for you and well done for bringing out a product that can help make prints look new once theve been to a load of 'film done wrong' cinemas. PTR'S a Kodak invention work well too if used correctly and in a multiplex environment may be too time consumming to use corretly, hence they get a bad rap for not cleaning prints well. I use both products, and can assure you PTR'S work, and Film Guard works, allthough the Film Gaurd is normally only used on the bench in my sites. Day to Day shows run on PTR. I just have never wanted the risk of a scratch putting on a print via a slow moving media cleaner, allthough FIlm Guard will probably repair the scratch! But PTR'S have worked wonders on the used print of 'Passion of christ' that I'm running at present. Was dirty, now spotless. Just viewed it and seen the improvement. To sum it all up, this battle will go on forever, it is down to the individual to choose where to put there money, I have both. PTR'S are good enough for IMAX, there good enough for me. Film Guard does amazing things to old knackered prints. Darren  |  IP: Logged Robert Edgecomb Film Handler Posts: 7 From: St. Louis, MO, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 04-12-2004 04:42 PM                     Thanks Darren and everyone. My philosophy which has come out of a few months of experimenting with both FG and PTRs is that they both work. I use PTRs on ever show and then FG only when greately needed. The prints have gotten ebtter by this technique and some have even improved. PTRs though just seem to take the dust away and it keeps coming back which is a pain. THanks everyone. I know I will have more questions in the future, especially about scratchs. I have a print of 'Touching the Void' that has short horizontal scratches (both black and green). I think it is from the sound roller. I dont know. Thanks again.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 04:54 PM                        quote: John Pytlak wrote: In our tests, it took several passes to clean a really dirty print In my tests, it was hard to notice a difference after several passes. This was with our print of Titanic and a set of 4 brand new PTR film cleaning units. Since we had 4, we only had to wash them all once a day since we'd just continue swapping out cleaners. The cleaners would get very gunky and it didn't make much of a visible difference onscreen. I don't think it could have ever gotten rid of all the dirt. I say leave PTRs where they belong... in labs and IMAX booths. The reason why PTRs are good enough for IMAX is because the dirt particles on the film seem much smaller when projected. Think about it. 35mm is a much smaller area and dirt specks seem much bigger as a result. I couldn't imagine running PTRs day to day in a multiplex. Also, you all wouldn't believe the things I had to agree to and sign just to test Filmguard before it was released. Keeping it private until it was 100% perfect was definitely something Brad was VERY adamant about.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 05:02 PM                     Darren, you need to do a side by side test for yourself. Make it fair. Same complex, same make/model of projectors, same operators. Use PTRs as outlined exactly as instructed for optimum effectiveness on one print. On another print of the same movie run FilmGuard exactly as instructed for optimum effectiveness (which does not mean simply wiping the edges). Run both prints like this for as long as you have two copies. When the time comes that you are going to ship one of them out, come report back about what a joke PTRs are after seeing a direct comparison and how enlightened you are. Be sure and take readings on the SRD/SDDS tracks as well. QC software is readily available to track this. There is a difference between a print looking good and being amazed at how good something can look. I get your kind of comments repeatedly from people who haven't done the test for themselves. Never has someone not reported the same findings and not been completely amazed at how good prints look when ran with FG as instructed. BTW, you are also cheating on your PTR review by wiping the edges with FG. That's what is taking care of most of your shedding! Conduct fair tests and THEN come back and post. As it is you are spreading incorrect information to others. Finally if you are really worried about a media cloth scratching your film, take note that I have ran dry FT pads through virgin film for hours and hours on end in a loop with so much tension added that the sprockets were stretched. There was not even a hint of a scratch. Feel free to also take a reel of film (perhaps some new trailers you don't need, but make sure it's something without existing scratches to be fair) and throw a big handful of some good old fashioned dirt from the yard onto each side of the roll, then run it reel to reel through a media cleaner using FT pads and FG with the clutch backtension maxed out. Guess what...no scratches! Feel free to do such testing for yourself. Learning is good. Try it. quote: Darren Briggs PTR'S are good enough for IMAX, there good enough for me. Oh my, you simply MUST come visit some of the IMAX theaters I've been to. Their prints were insanely dirty! Everyone who visited the Dallas IMAX at Fair Park about a year ago at our gathering can attest to the lousy presentation there. The same thing goes for the dirt tornado at the Cinemark Webb Chapel 17 in Dallas. It's like they are just throwing shovels of dirt on the prints. I suppose if that's good enough for you though, more power to ya.  |  IP: Logged Robert Stawiarski Film Handler Posts: 62 From: MW Registered: Aug 2003 posted 04-12-2004 07:50 PM                    Brad, you simply MUST come visit some of the IMAX theatres I have been to. We run a pretty tight ship here in Lincolnshire and try and keep our presentations looking as good as possible. I have also been to the Navy Pier IMAX and their prints are run clean. Like with anything else, you will find better results based on the people that are running the system and the pride they take in the presentation. IMAX is quite different from 35mm in that the film is directly in contact with one of the optics. While the 'dirt' projected on screen in a 35mm presentation is only for that specific frame and disappears immediately after it is projected, in IMAX, the dirt you may see may stay there throughout the entire show if you have a sub-standard operator (especially if the 'dirt' is on the back of the field lens). It does not necessarily mean the print is 'dirty' or PTRs are ineffective. There are a variety of factors that can affect an IMAX presentation that are not directly related to PTRs. How well does the operator clean out the rotor, gates, and stators between shows? How well does the operator clean the field lens (including the back, where the wiper bars do not swipe) between shows? For example, if the back of the field lens is not cleaned properly, an otherwise clean print will look 'dirty' on screen because the wiper bars do not clean the back when cycled. Is the field lens cycle on? Is it a relay based system where either the projection operator or console operator need to cycle the field lens manually and were not doing so? The newer PLC based systems have an auto-cycle, but it can be turned off and the dirt will accumulate throughout the show without being swiped off. Are the wiper bars changed regularly? If they are not, their cleaning effect will be reduced. Were they even installed?! Are the tolerances set correctly (abnormal print shedding can occur if they are not)? IMO, it is a bit of a stretch to say you have been to a few poorly presented IMAX presentations and thus conclude PTRs are completely ineffective without considering the other variables; we do not all run 'dirt tornado' shows nor do plenty of other IMAX theatres.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 08:21 PM                     Don't put words in my mouth Robert. I have done more than enough testing in the 35mm world to know PTRs are only slightly effective and they were all fair tests with two identical prints side by side (mostly compared to running PTRs vs. dry media). Comparing a method of cleaning between different film stocks, or different projection equipment, or especially between 35mm and a format like IMAX is just ridiculous. Where are you pulling this nonsense out of? I am doing some traveling in the near future and part of those plans is to stop in to any IMAX theater within reasonable distance for a screening. I'll report back then what I find. That doesn't change the fact that PTRs are not all that effective and it also doesn't change the fact that the IMAX theaters around here are lousy and giving IMAX a bad name. (By the way this issue has come up before and even a year later nothing has been done by IMAX to remedy the situation at these locations.) To answer your question, it would appear the wiper cleaned the lens at least every 5 seconds or so. I don't ever recall seeing dirt that remained in place for an entire show though.  |  IP: Logged Robert Stawiarski Film Handler Posts: 62 From: MW Registered: Aug 2003 posted 04-12-2004 09:17 PM                    Well, for the record, we use FilmGuard here for our 35mm prints and are pleased with the results, which is what the original poster asked in the first place. All of our 35mm prints presented in our IMAX theatre are treated with FilmGuard for a reason. I only brought up IMAX when you referenced your bad experiences with IMAX in response to Darren's quote: "PTR'S are good enough for IMAX, there good enough for me." Obviously, I would not have brought up another film format if it was not referenced, especially in a negative light, in a previous post. It's akin if I were to say: "I saw a dirt tornado 35mm showing that was treated with FilmGuard and it looked like they were shoveling dirt on the prints," and then say it is ridiculous nonsense if you were to reply and state other factors of how it may not have been applied properly, etc. No hard feelings. Now back on topic!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-12-2004 11:38 PM                  The best use I've found for PTR rollers is as a lint remover from clothes.... >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-13-2004 12:27 PM                        The risk of scratching a print with dry web media isn't usually from the media, it's from the abrasive particles that get caught in the media. I once saw a print severely scratched from head-to-tail by a projectionist who tried to use a dry media cleaner to clean a print that had picked up cement dust from some demolition work of a cinderblock wall when the booth was being expanded. The used dry media looked like a strip of sandpaper. Phil: Didn't iWERKS use mostly PTRs for on-line cleaning?: http://www.film-tech.com/pics/tinseltown/tinseltown.html  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-13-2004 01:34 PM                     Two posts up of mine I addressed that. The media we are sending out now is textured to permit the dirt clumps to fall into the groves of the media for cleaning even under extreme conditions such as that without scratching. (Kelmar offers a similar product, but none of the other manufacturers do.) While that is a valid concern, I've opened theaters and ran booths with MAJOR amounts of construction dirt with media/FG and never had a scratch. I am talking where if you wiped down the platter decks, that within a few hours there would be another noticeable layer of dust that you could take your finger and write "PTRs don't work in this environment" in the dust. Care to do a side by side comparison under such extreme conditions?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-13-2004 03:19 PM                        Long ago I found that the air conditioning system in our facility was producing lots of particulate of unknown makeup or origin. Fixing the system was a solution beyond the scope of our operation so I decided to simply block all vents that supplied dirty air and I installed air two air scrubbers in the booth as well as a large capacity air conditioner to make up for the now lack of cool air supply (which was always marginally effective to begin with). The air scrubbers which used a combination of mechanical filtering and electrostatic charged plates pulled a frightening amount of dirt out of the air in the first months. Luckily our floors are painted cement rather than carpet (which is known to hold lots of dirt), I took to using a wetvac to wash and dry the floor once a week. This combination seemed to make a substantial difference in the amount of airborne dirt that is now captured by the air scrubbers the air conditioner filter. Seems that capturing and eliminating the dirt before it can be attracted by the film's static charge attacks the problem on the front end, yet this is rarely considered in booth construction or operation. If booths were operated as near-clean rooms, new prints would rarely need the kind of constant cleaning that standard booths seem to require. In another theatre there is a rug and so wetvac is not an option, but I have them vacuum the floor with a vacuum cleaner that has a hepa filter. I am not as convinced of this procedure's efficacy since I don't have any way to know if the filter on the vacuum is effective enough to prevent dirt from being picked up from the rug and then have some of it spued back into the room. Rugs, as sexy they make a booth look, are not what should be installed in projection booths, IMHO.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 04-13-2004 03:36 PM                     PTRs are OK, as John P. pointed out, in the film lab and on telecine machines. Both places (hopefully) have much cleaner air than the average projection booth and employees there are trained to handle valuable original materials. I have seen (in theatres) wet cleaning from Kinoton/Retheto, antistatic carbon fiber brush cleaners and PTRs that were cleaned every two shows. None of these solutions compared to FilmGuard. The Kinoton cleaner had stationary pads and a quite primitive liquid dispenser. This type of cleaning was effective on new prints, but the cleaning fluid seemed to be hazardous to health and if the projectionist forgot to replace pads only once, you got really bad scratches. The PTRs did what was mentioned in this thread, they took dirt away from reel ends and solices, spreading it equally over the whole print. When they were cleaned to manufacturer's specifications, they detoriated and fell apart within two months. Second best to FilmGuard I would rate the carbon brushes, I had a print running for 8 weeks in a booth with bad air condition equipment and a lot of dust. The print was not scratched after that run, and the image looked dirt-free. The only drawback was that any kind of grease or oil (on old print and especially foreign prints from india ) would clog the fibers and cleaning them was hell. In other words, if there was no FG, I would recommend carbon fiber brushes, PTRs would be last on my list.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-13-2004 06:52 PM                     OK, I'm a little late getting to this one, but you knew I'd be here sooner or later... The cost comparison isn't much of an argument. For PTR's to have continued effectiveness, they need to be replaced from time to time or the tackiness will disappear. You'll then end up with just four rollers moving over your print for not very much reason. How often do PTR's get changed in your booths? Ever? Are you still running with the originals? There is no way that ANYONE, that't right, ANYONE who has used both (ESPECIALLY in a side by side comparison) could say that PTR's are more effective than FG. That's just nuts. PTR's are good in the labs and to a certain extent are useful on IMAX prints but simply for no other reason that there's not much else to use as an option. If you are cleaning tags etc. with FG, why not use PTR's? There must be a reason. Filmguard every time.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-15-2004 06:49 PM                  John Pytlak said: quote: Phil: Didn't iWERKS use mostly PTRs for on-line cleaning?: http://www.film-tech.com/pics/tinseltown/tinseltown.html John: Iwerks did try using PTRs for awhile. We tried many different film-cleaning methods. ...Both in the lab and in the field. Commercially available systems as well as some of our own designs. In the specific case that you link to, PTRs were proven unnecessary as that particular system had its own filtered air supply that kept the film clean. The PTRs were disabled and that cleaner was discontinued in all Iwerks applications as well as that particular projection system. Which, by the way, they were discontinued as not being practical and for not providing any noticable benefit. In an application that projected a 3-minute simulator-ride film about 12 times an hour for 20 hours a day (=240 times each day) PTRs are a burden. They are a high-maintenance item that NO ONE would maintain! As far as 1570 applications, yes we used PTRs. But, we had MUCH trouble with the peeling off of the emulsion due to not knowing that there were 2 versions of PTRs. A high-speed (read for 1570) version that had a matt finish was required for our applications. KODAK supplied us with the standard “high-gloss” versions that cost us many big-time bux for damaged prints. I still really question the benefit of PTRs in ANY application. I must have 20 PTR rollers around here at home that I use for lint pick-up! (I just have a lot of leisure suits from the 70s!) In short, I think for applications other than lint removable, PTRs are great for HIGH maintenance applications such as labs. But for the real world... forget it! They SUCK! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 04-15-2004 07:55 PM                     Most of the endless loop cabinet installs I did some time ago...the room was climate controlled and particle free, the cabinet had a positve filtered air flow and air sqeegues where installed just prior to the projection head....most prints where replaced due to print fade and where dirt free. I use PTR's to clean film negatives I handle. Our experiments with PTR's in clients cinemas would find them crudded up after running 30 - 40 minutes of film ads prior to the feature...I have sold a couple of advertising film producers media cleaners so they can Film Guard their prints for recycling and film preservation.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.