Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film-Guard for archive prints ?

This is topic Film-Guard for archive prints ? 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=001561

Posted by Florian Pausch (Member # 708) on 10-14-2000, 12:49 PM:

Hello, Brad,

reading the posts about FG and its incredible effects on prints in "commercial" use (mass prints running regularily in the film theatres), I have two questions:
1. Would you recommend the use of FG on archive prints / are there any long-time tests regarding dye-fading etc ? (We had to recognise, that prints that had been "treated/waxed...." for second and third runs 20 or 30 years ago had suffered much more dye-fading than prints that had not been regenerated)
2. FG on nitrate stock ??????

Thanks,
and congratulations for this wonderful site,
best wishes from Vienna...
Flo

------------------
Florian Pausch
projectionist and technician
Filmarchiv Austria,Vienna
www.filmarchiv.at
fpausch@aon.at

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-14-2000, 12:56 PM:

Hitting 11 years now and not the slightest sign of deterioration on the test prints. Consequently, non-treated identical prints are warping and becoming very brittle.

Never tried FG on nitrate, but I believe someone several months back did and reported good results.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-16-2000, 10:44 AM:

Regardless of how spectacular the results achieved by Filmguard are, it's worth bearing in mind that many archives will not allow the users of their release prints to apply any sort of chemical treatment whatsoever.

I can see their point - if they allowed some but not others then the manufacturers of the disallowed treatments would at the very least be annoyed and might well contemplate legal action. But on the other hand, most public sector archives simply haven't got the resources to carry out thorough testing programmes on all the treatments that are on the market.

So the bottom line is that if you are thinking about treating an archive print with Filmguard or anything else, ask the archive first.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2000, 11:26 AM:

To archive something is to preserve it in as near a state to its original as possible. This would eliminate any type of chemical treatment. Even photographs that are kept for archival storage are printed on a low acid base paper and are washed to archival standards to eliminate any trace of photographic chemistry that may be left behind. Even the water used to wash(whatever) must meet very high standards
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-17-2000, 06:26 AM:

Films that are irreplacable or archival should NOT be treated with any chemical. It is very difficult to predict adverse effects that may occur after many years. For example, in the 1950's, many negatives were treated with lacquers to cover scratches -- decades later, many of these lacquer coatings have deteriorated, and cannot be removed without permanently damaging the film.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131 specifies "Storage of Motion Picture Films". Films with long-term value need to be processed and washed such that there is no residual chemistry (e.g., retained thiosulfate or incorrect pH cause dye fading). They should NOT be treated with any chemicals. In general, films should be stored in cool and dry conditions. Because acid vapors can be formed during storage, film should NOT be stored in sealed containers so the acid vapors can vent, or should be stored with materials that adsorb moisture and acid vapors (e.g., Molecular Sieves). Periodic careful winding and inspection help "vent" any acid buildup, and reduce risk of ferrotyping or film deformation.

------------------
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 Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-17-2000, 01:06 PM:

I did use the term 'release prints' in my earlier post, referring to the collection of viewing copies of material being preserved which many archives maintain for screening in rep cinemas, in festivals and for research use. Remember that archives aren't just about preservation, but also about access, which is where these viewing copies come into play.

Archival release prints, therefore, are not preservation elements and therefore are not subject to the conservation regime under which preservation elements would be kept. However, they're a lot rarer and more expensive to replace than a run of prints of a new title being circulated by a distributor, and so archives normally impose stricter rules on their use.

For example, the UK National Film and Television Archive has quite a detailed set of rules, which include conditions such as not cutting the heads and tails off each reel, only handling the prints with cotton gloves and 'not attempting any repair or treatment' on the prints without their permission. They wax all their prints but I'm not aware of any archive using a cleaning agent such as Filmguard on them.

Needless to say, no properly run archive would even contemplate letting a preservation element out for projection under any circumstances.

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 10-17-2000, 02:04 PM:

I'm screening an archive print right now. The Swedish Film Institute doesn't have the resources to make separate release prints so I always run their "preservation elements".

God knows that some of their preservation elements would need some kind of treatment. My early show tonight was a forty-year old print of "The Seven-Year Itch". Every minute of the age of that film was on screen, and they don't have any other print.

Now, presumably they won't allow the screening of their oldest or most valuable material, but I've screened some pretty rare films in my time. I always wonder how long those prints will last.

But in spite of this strange policy they rarely allow us to screen their 70mm prints. Not because they are considered to be "preservation elements", not because they are too brittle, but because they think most of them are too red in colour...