Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Photoguard = :(

This is topic Photoguard = :( in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000670

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2000, 04:02 AM:

Dreamworks is rereleasing American Beauty this weekend. The last time Dreamworks rereleased something (Saving Private Ryan) they "cleaned up" the prints with photoguard. I am fearing that they will do this again with American Beauty. If this is the case, FilmGuard won't be able to battle the grime on these prints.

I thought it would be a good idea if Brad could tell us all how to identify a Photoguarded print, what to expect from them, and any other information he may have on this crappy process.

The studios really need to embrace FilmGuard.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-16-2000, 11:30 AM:

Is Photoguard that 3-M "Scotchguard-for-film"??

Well, if it is I've got some. When we ordered our "title strip" trailers they came with that junk on them.

It makes the film look real glossy-looking. You can actually see the stuff. It looks like a thick varnish-like coating.

Well, I guess the stuff is okay but when you put FilmGuard on it:

1) It doesn't do a whole lot
2) It smells like burning rubber when it goes through the projector.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-16-2000, 06:57 PM:

If it's a 3M Photoguarded print, call Technicolor and simply demand a non-treated print. That's what I did when Saving Private Ryan was re-released. The un-treated print I got had some black scratches, but were covered up after a week's running with FilmGuard.

There is a very distinct odor to Photoguard. I think Randy put it best, "like burning rubber". It will look completely different to a normal print with a rainbow kind of glossy surface. It will also run substantially louder and will shake more on screen. Focusing is usually affected as well. However in it's defense, that coating is to overkill, there is no way in hell you can scratch it!

If you do get one of these prints, don't waste your time trying to clean it with FilmGuard or any other liquid cleaner. It will not do a bit of good. Also, stray away from running a regular cleaner on it, as it will cause it to shed like there's no tomorrow. Just thread it, start it, go make a phone call to TES, clean the projector, thread it, start it, go make a nasty phone call to TES, clean the projector, thread it, start it, commence yelling at TES, etc. You know, the usual procedure to get what you need.

I understand Dreamworks is making new prints on this one, so hopefully this won't even be an issue.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-16-2000, 07:29 PM:

Does anyone else think that it's really silly that they have to re-print a film that's less than a year old? Really, now...the original prints _should_ still be in top condition if they were handled properly (which, of course, most of them probably weren't).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-17-2000, 12:44 AM:

Silly, yes. Realistic, no. The odds are that most of the prints were junked before Oscar time. The remaining prints were probably not inspected, but just randomly grabbed off of the top of the pile and were probably in horrible condition.

A few years back, I was picking up some prints at the local depot and saw an interesting sight. There was 20 brand new, never opened prints of a very major motion picture. While that may not sound odd, the fact that this was junking day for that title certainly sparked my interest. As I was waiting to have my prints pulled, I chatted with a fellow who was packing up prints to go out. He told me those were over-ordered, as the studio didn't come through with as many playdates as they had expected and the prints had been sitting there unopened since a couple of days before it's first release. I then made a comment along the lines of "well, at least you know which ones to keep for the archives. "

As it turns out, those were to be junked. When I asked why, the answer was "we don't know if those have any lab problems in them, but these that just came back from the dollar house runs didn't get any complaints, so we KNOW these are good prints."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH!

(Fortunately, this thought pattern has since been changed.)

Posted by Charles Lubner (Member # 157) on 02-17-2000, 12:44 AM:

I got a Photoguarded print of "Private Ryan" at my budget cinema last year. When I was taking down the film I noticed the burning rubber smell. It also caused the rollers on my makeup table to get EXTREMELY hot. Luckily I haven't had one since.

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 02-17-2000, 03:01 AM:

Dreamworks definitely needs to strike new prints of AB for this run, cause when my theatre origianlly got this movie (only one week after the initial opening), both our prints were used - and we're a first run theatre. They were both in terrible shape. Just about everything that could have been wrong with them (besides scratches) was. It's going to be quite an adventure building that thing up tomorrow.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-17-2000, 01:29 PM:

Last week we tore down a decent print of American Beauty. Now we don't have room for the rerelease at the higher film rental. Oh well!

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-17-2000, 07:15 PM:

Higher film rental? You mean the rerelease can still command some sort of high percentage for the studios?

It's funny, we have a print of "American Beauty" sitting in the booth waiting to be shipped out and another one that just came in for the rerelease.

So is Photoguard the revolutionary method of print rejuvenation that TES claims to have developed? http://www.technicolor.com/services/ent-services.html

Posted by Andy Davis (Member # 262) on 02-18-2000, 12:02 AM:

I screened our print of American Beauty and it seemed to be in pretty good condition. It was NOT photoguarded and whoever had it before took really good care of it and spliced the heads and tails with clear tape and only on one side. I was curious how anybody's else AB prints came. Brand-new? Photoguarded? Piece of junk?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-18-2000, 05:14 AM:

My print was Photoguarded! They did it just to piss me off, I know it! I immediately requested an unprocessed print.

The print looks OK onscreen (for the first run), but it will collect dirt, shed more and more each show, etc etc. And it runs LOUD! And I can't even run FilmGuard on it.

PhotoGuard is for guarding photos.

Leave the guarding of film to FilmGuard.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-18-2000, 10:00 AM:

I ran a print of "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex" in 1983 or so, and it was exactly like what Randy said; There was a varnish-like coating on it, and it even had what looked like "brush-strokes" in it. I thought that might effect the picture, but didn't.

I didn't have that special splicing tape (no one told us we were getting that print, and I had never heard of Photoguard before), and initially tried to use regular tape. I was amazed how little anything stuck to the film. You could press the regular tape down as hard as you could, rub it in with your fingernail hard, hard, hard- and it would just fall off.
I later was told that "Everything..." was a popular film around the New York City collage crowd, and with lots of rentals, was chosen to really test the Photoguard.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-18-2000, 10:31 AM:

The first test of photguard was with Jaws when alternating reels were coated to se if print life could be extended
A large majority of Imax prints are photguarded and they are carefull to only photoguard the image area not the perfs to prevent powdering. The powder is from the over fill on the perf walls
Photoguard is a teflon coating and it makes most prints virtually scratch resistant (Popcorn pusher proof)
It also fills in light scratchs to hide them on recycled prints.
Most negatives get treated to protect them on high speed printers as well

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 02-18-2000, 11:08 AM:

Got a brand new print.

Paul
Cinemark - Legacy

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-18-2000, 02:13 PM:

Brand new print at Galaxy, Dallas.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-18-2000, 04:59 PM:

We got a used print, here in Erie. It wansn't Photoguarded.

Whoever had it before took good care of it. It looks almost brand new. You'd have to look really close to tell it had been run at all. The giveaway was the splices... they were ultrasonic!

Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 02-18-2000, 07:56 PM:

I got a used print of American Beauty but it was in very good shape and was not Photoguarded. I did encounter one oddity, however. The house light cue leftover from whatever theatre played it last, (or what I assume was a house light cue - it was placed right before the credits) was three stickers placed about four inches apart on the center of the film, each with a bar code printed on them. I assume these barcodes are read by an optical scanner and thus signal the automation. The stickers also had a number on them which I would assume are used to identify different cue stickers/commands. Is anyone familiar with this system? They were placed right smack dab in the middle of the frame and would have been very distracting on screen if I had left them on. They sure did leave a lot of residue when I pulled them off too. (nothing a little FilmGuard didn't take care of though.)

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 02-18-2000, 10:41 PM:

Our print had ultrasonic splices, but there were about 3 or 4 frames completely MISSING at each head and tail! So somebody at the lab probably cut off the reference frames that previous theatres had made. At the end of reel 4, there is a fade out, and a fade up at the beginning of reel 5. Both fades had a big ugly lab splice in the middle of them. That looks great on screen!

Our print was photoguarded, and it looks very bad on screen. Dim, bland colors, and a slight graininess.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-23-2000, 01:28 PM:

Nic,

Those are United Artists barcodes. I assume the number on the stickers was 18. That's the lights mid cue. I think 21 will work too but I can't remember. The reason that there were so many in a row is because the system is notorious for missing cues. UA is no longer using this automation in their newer theatres. They are using the Component Engineering 3 cue system, which uses foil dots (yuck).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-23-2000, 01:38 PM:

#18 and 24 are lights mid. #28 is lights up full (ideal for usher cleaning).

There were many problems in the original UA barcode systems. Most of them were improper alignment of the scanner or improper application of the barcodes (the number edge has to be opposite the sound track...few people knew this and it was not in any instructions). The remaining few problems were due to a ground on the scanner cable. The ground must NOT be connected.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-27-2000, 02:08 AM:

I'm going to rant a little to blow off a little steam! -- Apology in advance...

I'm rather peeved-off right now because I just got through building up a print that was Photoguarded. It is has dirt embedded in the surface of the "protective" coating. There are some scratches in the surface, too. The REAL kicker is that some butt-head tried to shoe polish the reel changes! Since almost nothing sticks to Photoguard (except dirt!), it got all over the print! I spent a lot of time getting the CRAP of the print and NOW I can't FilmGuard it!...

Quote:
<<Foreign materials (especially oils) applied to the film may later interfere with rewash processes and base treatments sometimes used by distributors to "rejuvenate" used prints.>>

Wouldn't you say that Photoguard is a "foriegn material" and it "interferes" with other "treatments"??? Photoguard should be BANNED! (Or at least limited to use on Imax and stuff like that! -- You ought to have to get a license to use it!) GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-27-2000, 02:36 AM:

Randy,

What was the print? Was it another American Beauty or something else?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2000, 04:58 PM:

Dancing at Lughnasa

It's an Irish drama. It looks pretty good but I haven't screened it yet.

We got it from New Yorker films. I had a half a mind to send it back but that's pretty useless sometimes. You usually get a WORSE one. My boss has complained about the crappy condition of the films to them. They probably sent this print (Print #1) because they thought they were doing us a favor!

I don't know if anybody else notices but I hope Mercyhurst is getting a good reputation for film handling. The people who handle film, besides me, are all pretty conscientous. Even though they might think I'm not watching, I am. From what I've seen of their work I am damn certain that film goes back 9,000,000 times in better condition!