Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film Guard is made of .......?

This is topic Film Guard is made of .......? 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=001082

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 06-09-2000, 11:11 PM:

I was wondering what the contents of Film-Guard is. I recently got a bottle, and there is no label of contents on it.

I could be mistaken, but I thought that any chemical product had to have a listing of the chemicals that it is composed of. Certainly OSHA in there infinate facism would need something to put in thier MSDS books.

I am just curious, in case one of the cannon fodder that works in my booth decided to drink some.

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 06-09-2000, 11:25 PM:

Correct me if I'm wrong, Brad, but FilmGuard is still patent pending, so the ingredients won't be printed on the bottles until the patent goes through completely, so that no one can make a FilmGuard knockoff. That's my guess anyway.

I would have to say that if someone is stupid enough to drink FilmGuard, they have no business being in the booth

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-09-2000, 11:45 PM:

Whachadya meeen yu caarrn'''tt drwinkkkk itt?
CORRSE yuu kannnn drwinnkkk (hic) drwinnkkkitt. Sommee ov theee bessstt projek (hic) projik (hic) progecshun (hic) fillum handlas inthe WORLD!!!!!! The WORLD!!!! (hic) swear bye it.

Wheare (hic) wazz I...?

Ohhh Yeaaaaaaaes...

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 06-10-2000, 12:58 AM:

Personally, I prefer a mix of WD 40, XeCote, butane and Century, NOT Simplex, oil to be the best elixer any projectionist could ask for.

But given your suggestion, I think I will put Film-Guard to the test.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2000, 01:07 AM:

If you want an MSDS sheet, email the address on the bottle. However, the actual ingredients will not be revealed. There is no legal requirement. Not to worry, so long as you don't drink it, you will be fine.

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 06-10-2000, 07:03 AM:

It's funny ths topic should come up-I got my Film Guard on Thursday and as I was using it, I was trying to place why the smell was so familiar. It's sort of like the stuff you spray on a dust mop, but I can't really pinpoint it. The smell does linger in the booth(and on your hands). It won't hurt skin, will it?
While we're on the subject, I do have a question-I was going to contact Brad directly, but others may want to know the answer. I do not have media cleaners(yet-I'm working on it), so I used the method of wiping Film Guard on the top and bottom edges of the film with a cloth to eliminate static and shedding. Does this procedure only need to be performed once at the beginning of the run of a film? Once a week? I did notice a MAJOR difference in the film gate, so I'm already pleased with the results, but how often do I have to do it?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-10-2000, 10:29 AM:

I found that if you apply it just once it will last the whole run, as far as eliminating static. I had a print of star wars that ran for 12 weeks with just the one application. There was no shedding and no static for the entire period.

And on the subject of ingredients Brad, is it normal to grow extra fingers after exposure to film-guard? Just curious.

Dave

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2000, 10:53 AM:

As to how often the edges should be wiped depends on your projectors. Some projectors are inherantly more abrasive on the film while others are extremely gentle on the film. If once works, then great. With the more abrasive projectors, I recommend once every week or two weeks. If you start seeing shedding or the projector starts chattering loudly (like when film is run dry), then wipe some more on.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-10-2000, 09:22 PM:

Dave- FilmGuard had not been released by the time Star Wars Ep 1 was out (At least nowhere near the beginning of its run). Or do you have a second run theater?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-11-2000, 02:46 AM:

Brad wrote: >>Not to worry, so long as you don't drink it, you will be fine.<<

Ulp!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-11-2000, 02:49 AM:

Joe wrote: >>FilmGuard had not been released by the time Star Wars Ep 1 was out (At least nowhere near the beginning of its run).<<

Is that right? I thought it had been out longer than 12 months. Are you confusing ep 1 with ep 4? (If you are, please consider yourself cyber-slapped. If you are not, then I will return myself the favour)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-11-2000, 03:00 AM:

I'd have to check, but if memory serves, FilmGuard was publicly released to the market Aug 8th, 1999.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-12-2000, 01:54 AM:

--SLAP--

OUCH!!!!... SLAP...Ooooooh!

Sorry Joe. I guess I must be mixing up the testing dates with the rest-of-us dates. (I should have known better that you wouldn't mistake ep4 for that new crap. Yes, George...face it...it's crap.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 06-12-2000, 08:16 AM:

I got my first bottle in September '99.

The Holmes has never seen anything designed to improve the screen image before this. Have they ever? Why would they? Who cares? Its only a portable with a standard lamp!

I dont drink it, however, I have grown a neat webbing between my fingers, and my fingernails have not needed a trimming in months.

This sh*t is so expensive, I think you should just inhale it instead of mixing it with century oil.

For dessert one night, after eating xenon-under-glass-mirror, put enough used Holmes grease in a Jell-O mold to fill to the top. Using the included spray nozzle, give the mixture one squirt on the top of the mold. Refrigerate awhile. Remove the mold, sprinkle with polyester dust, give one more squirt for texture, and serve. Serves 2.

Only use 50 year old grease. The newer stuff has additives that will kill. If unsure, dont eat it.

A sick mind came up with this recipe suddenly. Too much Vitafilm over the years???

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-12-2000, 09:46 AM:

Bruce:

Wasn't "VitaFilm" the film treatment that smelled like "Vick's Vapo-Rub"? Some film treatments tried using camphor as a plasticizer, and had that distictive odor. You can also tell the ones that are citrus-based (D-Limonene), or that still use the ozone-depleting methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane).

Good technical overviews of the solvents and lubricants that might be used in film treatments are contained in the SMPTE Journal:

"Practical Film Cleaning for Safety and Effectiveness" by Fassett, Kolb and Weigel, September 1958 SMPTE Journal.

"Lubrication of Motion-Picture Film" by Kolb and Weigel, April 1965 SMPTE Journal.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 06-12-2000, 11:08 AM:

John:

Since I have less than a gallon of Vitafilm now, I had to go smell it and see... After I woke up , I think we are talking about another cleaner. Vitafilm has a sickly sweet smell. I know they no longer make it, and I am saving it for some old warped Kodak, and DuPont stock that soak in it before I run them.

I'm kinda leery about putting FG on a previously Vitafilmed print.

I am very glad that FG does not mess with tape splices, like Vitafilm does.

Does anybody know (John) if FG will react to any other cleaners? The only prints that have FG here are ones that have had no other cleaners before them. (IE: Vitafilm)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-12-2000, 01:01 PM:

Bruce:

That "sickly sweet" smell may be methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), or an organic ester solvent (not to be confused with ESTAR film base).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-12-2000, 02:49 PM:

Feel free to Bruce, just make sure to let the VitaFilm dry completely before applying FilmGuard. I've done it plenty of times with no adverse effects.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 06-12-2000, 06:00 PM:

GREAT. Its time to get a new bottle.

I got a garage full of stuff to clean.

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 06-12-2000, 11:15 PM:

I am afraid that I am upset with Film-Guard. I do not get that cool contact high that I get from XeCote. I spent the better part of my weekend trying to get that. Instead I get a smell that is vaguely reminiscent of kerosene.

But I will say that it did remove quite a bit of crap off of my print of Magnolia. So far so good.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-13-2000, 11:08 AM:

I've talked about what's in FilmGuard with several people. We've come up with some pretty good inferences as to what's in it. I've even heard stories about certain people who have analyzed it. The results of those tests are pretty much in line with what we all thought.

Who gives a flying frog-leap!!! The sh** WORKS!!!

Some guy spent a lot of time and energy putting his knowledge and resources into developing a product. I respect that and I'm leaving it at that.

I've had ideas that ran along the lines of what FilmGuard does but I don't have the resources to put them into action. Besides, even if I did, Brad would have beat me hands down. I'm just glad that SOMEBODY did it!

If you want the safety info get the MSDS. I have one and I'll summarize it:

Just use it according to the directions and you'll be okay.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-13-2000, 05:47 PM:

Actually we've never been able to make it catch on fire. We've intentionally tried to do this. Some other cleaners if even jammed in the gate will melt the frame and then go ablaze, but we've never been able to make that happen. Even lighting a paper towel in a bowl of it wouldn't ignite. Those MSDS sheets are always a bit overkill to me, but hey, it's the law. Just don't drink the stuff! (And no, no one has yet to guess the ingredients. I've heard pretty much every possible theory too. The most popular theory is "bug spray".)

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 06-14-2000, 12:32 AM:

Bug spray?

Know where I can score some?

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 06-14-2000, 10:12 PM:

All jokes aside, Film Guard is good stuff, but I do treat it as a potentially (stress POTENTIALLY) harmfull chemical. This means I where rubber gloves when handling the bottle and it's contents, and suggest to the booth staff that they do the same. Four years ago my mother contracted cancer and the first thing her doctor asked her was "have you been exposed to any solvents or cleaning fluids?". Keep in mind that Xekote is no longer made because of a cancer scare.

I trust Brad's knowledge and products, as well as commend him on a job well done in bringing about and maintaining this premier web sight. But I also believe in personal safety for myself and fellow operators. I don't think I'm going overboard in how I treat Film Guard. I'm sure you all understand.

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 06-15-2000, 01:15 AM:

I was under the impression that Xecote (One) was taken off of the market due to the Quote O-Zone depleting chemicals End Quote. I had not heard that it was pulled for Cancer. The Xecote II is very similar chemically to the original.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-15-2000, 02:16 AM:

I thought Xekote was pulled because the product sucked.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-15-2000, 06:32 AM:

Many fast-evaporating, non-flammable, film treatments used methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) as the solvent. It was also widely used for industrial operations like metal degreasing. Like FREON (CFC-12), this solvent is no longer manufactured because it is believed to harm the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol). Existing supplies may continue to be used, and recycled/reused, but no new material is being made. Dwindling supplies and significantly increased costs have caused film cleaner manufacturers to use alternative solvents that may be more hazardous, more flammable, evaporate more slowly, or cost much more.

Aaron is correct that ANY solvent should be handled in a way to minimize personal exposure (chemical-resistant gloves, good ventilation), and in accord with the manufacturer's instructions and MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 06-15-2000, 06:35 AM:

We used Xecote for years-Film Guard is a far superior product. After one week of use, still no purple residue in the film gate. I can't wait until winter-no static this year!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-15-2000, 08:47 AM:

Joe wrote: "I thought Xekote was pulled because the product sucked."

I laughed out loud when I read this! Don't suger-coat it, tell us what you really think!

I did find that Xekote was helpful to keep down shedding on B&W prints, but didn't use it otherwise.

Personally, I feel that the whole ozone layer thing is unresolved. For every report saying the ozone layer has been depleted, I've seen another saying it's a cycle the earth goes through and is normal.

In the meantime, we replace safer products (like Freon) with a refrigerant that is toxic. In the long run, which is really safer?

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 06-15-2000, 10:05 AM:

John Walsh wrote:
>>In the meantime, we replace safer products (like Freon) with a refrigerant that is toxic. In the long run, which is really safer?<<

IMHO, this has nothing to do with safety and ozone and such. It is all about politics, and patents, and money. When your patent runs out, get the government to outlaw the product, and then come to the rescue with a new (and yes, patented) product. At least that is what I have heard. I am willing to stand corrected if this is not really the case, and my apologies to DuPont if I am wrong. Somebody tell me if this is correct or not!

End of rant!

------------------
Oscar Neundorfer
Chief Engineer
SMART Devices, Inc.

oscar@smartdev.com

Posted by David Koegel (Member # 25) on 06-15-2000, 11:32 AM:

You know, Oscar, when I first hear that theory that you quote, I immediately discounted it. But the more and more I thought about it, the more I believed it's true. I think you can see that in a lot of industries, from medicines to pesticides to even Scotch Guard products. Once patent protection is lifted and generic products start competing with the name products, the profit margins drop to just about zero. What to do? Invent a newer, "safer" albeit more expensive alternative while eliminating the competition.

Even if this weren't true, just look at the freon-12 and -22 issue. Most of it is still being used in closed systems. However, in the past, it was used as a propellent in just about every spray can and was even used in a jig that chilled your cocktail glasses before you poured yourself a drink. With gross tonnages literally being blown into the atmosphere, of COURSE it would start to accumulate and perhaps interact with atmospheric chemical reactions. So why didn't they just eliminate SOME of the uses of these products instead of a wholesale ban? Billions have been spent to replace a nontoxic and cheap product that worked just fine for air conditioning and cooling.

Of course this plan was probably hatched on a grassy knoll in Dallas a few years back....

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-15-2000, 11:52 AM:

All you ever (never) wanted to know about the ozone layer and reasons behind the "Montreal Protocol" solvent restrictions are on the site:
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/intro.html

The Greenpeace site gives their viewpoint:
http://www.greenpeace.org/~ozone/

The HVAC Industry viewpoint is at:
http://www.hvacmall.com/news/news_government.htm

The Surface Cleaning Laboratory has information at:
http://www.cleaning.org/HTMLSrc/FactSheet2.html

The US Environmental Protection Agency site has information (search "Montreal Protocol" and "methyl chloroform"):
http://www.epa.gov

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-15-2000, 09:31 PM:

My god Oscar, you are human! We actually agree on something! ;-)

I too believe the R-12 scare was DuPont's way of keeping the profits up. And even if you believe the R-12 thing was bad what about R-22. Sure you can point to car A/C systems losing their charge but R-22 was used in Refrigerators and such...how many of those leaked out?

In any event, it was handled very piss-poorly. If the EPA thinks (not something I would accuse them of) that a substance may cause environmental harm, Like R-12 R-22 then simply stop the manufactur and import of the things that use it. Through attrition, the demand will drop. It would have been much smoother but DuPont wouldn't have been able to cash in on R134a like it did and does.

The EPA is one of those good ideas run amuck. I think the environment needs to be protected from industry but there doesn't seem to be any check on the EPA from going haywire.

Steve