|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Filmguard in So. Cal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-24-2002 12:15 PM
quote: "With simple washing after each show (either in water or with "see-saw" of adhesive tape), they can clean millions of feet of film."
quote: "A theatre cleaning 5 shows per day is cleaning about 1.5 million feet of film per month."
So again, how is it that PTRs are less expensive than a FilmGuard/media cleaning setup? PTRs are far from $20 items. The answer: PTRs are more expensive and have less cleaning effect and no lubricating qualities. PTRs have their place in laboratories and special venue situations such as IMAX. FilmGuard/media cleaners have their place in the common 35mm projection booth.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 07-24-2002 02:52 PM
Again: "Different horses for different courses".There are many applications where you don't want to, or need to, leave any foreign substance on the film. Proper lubrication of release prints is a legitimate recommendation, and is specified by SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 151. ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darren Briggs
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: York, UK
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 07-24-2002 03:52 PM
After following this thread it seems to me that as Film-Guard is a Film-Tech product, no matter if everyone said that they were great, Film-Guard will always be better! I think Shameless plug should be used when ever Film-Guard is mentioned by Brad! I don't agree that film-guard should be applied to real old prints as they may only be a few prints of that film around and slapping film-guard on them isn't the best way of preserving tham for years to come, I would suggest PTR them which even if the PTR's become loaded, old prints should ideally be rehearsed and you can allways stop and swap PTR's mid rehersal. After just inform the Distributor that the print needs Professional cleaning. Normally if your a respected cinema they will listen to you. Also before i used PTR's the prints didnt get that dirty, so if your prints are getting dirty without any cleaners, i suggest the projector/filmpath should be looked into to see why the film is getting a hard time as it is shown. My Cinemeccanica projectors (vic 8/5's, probably not the most film friendly in most peoples eyes), I havnt had any major 'nasty to the film' incidents. So if your Century's and Strongs out there in the U.S. mutilate the film, buu some nice european projectors! lol  Enough for now anyway ,but please put a SHAMLESS PLUG whenever Film-Guard is said to be 1000% better than PTR's and dont be a Mr Lucas and up the product just so you can get more money.Darren P.S. Who else thinks Mr John Pytlak rules!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-24-2002 04:02 PM
Darren, if you will notice, I generally do not comment on FilmGuard threads except when asked a question, however John has been posting hard core lately about the wonders of PTRs, so I felt it only suitable for me to post as well. Do note that Mr. Pytlak played a key role in the invention of PTRs. Think about it, and let the rest of the comments from people other than John and I on the site speak for themselves.Regarding your incorrect implications about how PTRs can be removed mid-show, bear in mind that not all PTR cleaner mounts are designed so that they are by-passable in mid show. Also, with a media cleaner (which is apparent that you have never used) the media cloth is constantly turning, presenting a fresh stretch of media. Finally, I have an extensive collection of old film (basically trailers because I could get two brand new copies of each for comparison purposes) stored in a variety of conditions dating back about 13 years now. In all situations, regardless of how they were stored, and without exception, the FilmGuarded print is in better condition than the identical copy stored dry. The prints not FilmGuarded have dried out, become brittle, warped and cracked. Make sure you are speaking from experience whenever you speak about a product, or make sure you put your own disclaimer in there that "I have not tried this product, but that product works well for me"...or something to that nature. So please answer the question, have you ever personally used FilmGuard? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you. And yes I agree with you that Cinemecannica projectors are incredibly gentle on film. 
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 07-24-2002 04:02 PM
Brad and many others prefer FilmGuard for treating release prints. Many prefer PTRs for their application. It's a free market, and users will choose the best product for their particular application. Brad has been very upfront about not being able to use FilmGuard in certain applications such as original negatives or IMAX projectors, and warning of the pitfalls of improper use or over application. PTR's only CLEAN the film, they are not a FILM TREATMENT intended to change the properties of the film, such as providing lubrication or hiding scratches. "Different horses for different courses". ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darren Briggs
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: York, UK
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 07-24-2002 04:16 PM
Ok using the wise words, "Different horses for different courses".Enough said. No hard feelings but... Quote 'Regarding your incorrect implications about how PTRs can be removed mid-show, bear in mind that not all PTR cleaner mounts are designed so that they are by-passable in mid show.' I said .... Quote 'you can allways stop and swap PTR's mid rehersal.' Sorted.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-24-2002 07:52 PM
John,It's hard to say how much use my PTRs had on them because I never used them constantly except on a print of Titanic. Also City of Angels and Saving Private Ryan. From then on we'd use them off an on. Somehow the print of Titanic stayed fairly clean. Not spotless, though. It was a used print when we got it (I think the managers ordered a new print to replace our dirty print) so maybe it was a "P5'd" print (It was called 'P5' until we named it 'Filmguard') from one of Brad's test theaters and that's why it didn't shed as much. It did have some blotches in a few reels that obviously occured at the lab and I can see one of Brad's test theaters rejecting the print. But of course it was probably run with P5 until the new print arrived. Hey you never know! But that print did give me a near-steady 0 error rate from our Dolby Digital basement readers. Actually I seem to remember Brad saying that none of his test theaters (besides Northpark) was running Titanic, so maybe the print was coated with a layer of magical power, because it definitely did not shed. Even after they lost their "sticky" the PTRs did still gather dust and dirt, but not much. You couldn't tell the difference after running PTR's on a print for a day. The "sticky" just wasn't "sticky" enough. PTRs could increase their value if you could peel layers off to get a "like new" roller after the current layer had worn out. PTRs are great for camera negatives and stuff like that. Filmguard for your average movie theater and archival purposes. Darren Briggs- I had a print that was very old and broke every single time it was run. I put Filmguard on that and it stopped breaking. Filmguard really relaxes acetate prints. I believe that with my Filmguarding I have extended the overall life of that print considerably. Plus the print looked incredible after a couple of days of Filmguarding. This can also be verified by any one of the projectionists who work at my theater. Sorry if you don't feel that's a good thing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Leko
Film Handler

Posts: 90
From: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-24-2002 09:48 PM
I have never tried Filmguard, and I am going to wait till I see an example of it before I even bring it up to the head projectionist. It doesn't look like anybody in So. Cal. is using FG, so until I go on vacation somewhere near one of your theaters, I am out of luck. As far as PTR's losing their stickiness, we have been using the same PTR rollers for at least a few months (I am sure much longer than that, as I have only been employed here for that long). Although they don't feel sticky to the touch, I can feel the rollers sticking to the film. They still collect dirt. As I mentioned in another post, the Wizard of Oz print that we used for our Summer Movie Camp was filthy. Ran an interlock for our first showing, and both sets of PTR's were packed with dirt. This is dirt that would still be on the film had we not used PTR rollers. As to the performance of Filmguard, I can only wait till I see it for myself. As for PTR rollers, I know they take a lot of dirt of the film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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.
|