Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: FilmGuard and VS: What Are Your Results?

This is topic FilmGuard and VS: What Are Your Results? 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=001705

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 12-05-2000, 08:44 PM:

Hi folks,
I've read some comments from people that FilmGuard may halt or retard the progression of vinegar syndrome. Could any of you share your actual experiences with FilmGuard and whether or not it affected a print's VS?

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 12-06-2000, 04:05 AM:

Hi Larry, there is a topic about FG and VS on page 3.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 12-06-2000, 07:08 AM:

I did a posting on this topic some time ago in which I reported some real luck in dealing (probably temporarily) with VS through LIBERAL applications of Film Guard over roughly a three month period. The "guinea pig" was smelly IB Tech print of "Strategic Air Command" that I acquired literally for nothing years ago, but which had now begun to ribbon badly, making it almost impossible to project. Heavy Film Guard applications removed the smell and also have relaxed the print to the point where it shows little to no warpage. Only time will tell if there is any permanent halting of the VS, and logic says there probably won't be, but for prolonging the life of a VS print I can't praise FG enough. As an aside, I have tried a variety of solvent based film cleaners on another VS print in the past (and ultimately threw out an IB "Band Wagon"...boy that hurt!)and nothing I've tried works as well as FG.

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 12-06-2000, 07:17 AM:

Thanks Martin, but that brief thread mostly discussed FilmGuard's pH level.

Hi Jeff,
Your experience is encouraging. I know that Brad said he had some vinegar smelling prints that no longer have a VS odor since applying FilmGuard. I'm wondering if this treatment is merely masking the scent of the ongoing reaction or if it's really slowing it down. I'm sure you want to know the same thing! It would be great to hear from other people who've used FG on their VS prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-06-2000, 07:22 AM:

Cool, dry storage is the best way to prevent vinegar syndrome. Acid vapors formed by any degradation need to be either vented (store film in unsealed containers like acid-free cardboard or vented cans) or adsorbed by molecular sieves in sealed cans.

The Kodak website has quite a bit of information on "vinegar syndrome":
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage2.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/mole.shtml

Polyester prints are much more stable than triacetate or nitrate prints.

------------------
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 Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 12-06-2000, 09:37 AM:

Maybe John Pytlak has some insight into this question, although apart from the print stock it really isn't an "Eastman" issue...in my 30-odd years of film collecting I've been lucky and probably only had 5-6 prints with VS, but 3 of them have been IB's, and they have also exhibited the worst shrinkage. I have a film vault that is kept at +/-65 degrees year round and is dehumidified in the summer, but obviously the damage could have occurred before I got the prints. I'm curious, though, in that Technicolor has (had?) a good reputation for careful processing, and imbibition printing is not a true photographic process (except for the track and frame lines), so residual hypo should not be a big problem. Is there some aspect of the imbibition process which could encourage VS and shrinkage/warpage, or is it just the luck of the draw with prints that are now 26 years old or more? Thanks for your input.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-06-2000, 09:53 AM:

Jeff:

Sorry, many of the details about the dye transfer process are proprietary, so I can't speculate as to why some earlier prints may seem more prone to vinegar syndrome.

We do know that prints with magnetic striping are more prone to develop vinegar syndrome, because of hydrolysis of the binders and the presence of iron, that can act as a catalyst.

Cool, dry and vented (or stored with Molecular Sieves) is the best prevention, and also will help retard further degradation. "Exercising" the prints every few years by careful winding/inspection or projection (to vent the buildup of vapors and relieve any buildup of tension) also helps.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 131 covers "Storage of Motion Picture Film":
http://www.smpte.org/stds/index.html

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 12-06-2000, 10:45 AM:

In traditional paper dye transfer printing, the matrices are soaked in dye, then washed with dilute acetic acid to remove the dye from the surface. The receiver paper is also soaked in a solution containing dilute acetic acid to aid in the dye transfer, and then the matrix is brought into contact with the paper. The dye migrates from the more acidic matrix to the less acidic receiver paper.

The Technicolor process uses similar chemistry, except that the printing is done continuously and onto film instead of paper, and the theory is that in some IB prints, the acetic acid may not have been completely washed out of the print, and could have "jump-started" the vinegar syndrome.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-06-2000, 11:50 AM:

John you said:
>>Polyester prints are much more stable than triacetate or nitrate prints.<<

How can anyone know that? Has the film been around for a long enough time to see what happens to it with age? I was just wondering. I hate the stuff and think that the old regular Safety Triacetate stock should be used again. But thats another thread

------------------
I love to smoke I smoke seventhousand packs a day and I'm never F*&ing quittin!-- Denis Leary

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-06-2000, 12:33 PM:

Polyester-base film has been used for years in various forms. Lots of 16mm library prints were printed on ESTAR-base stock starting in the late '70s, and it was in use before that time for other purposes. I have a 16m airline print from 1982 (first year of LPP) on ESTAR-base stock as well, which still has great color (which has nothing to do with base material, however).

I agree that the long-term "issues" with polyester are not well known, but we do know that nitrate shrinks and turns to flammable dust, and acetate shrinks and turns to goo. By contrast, we know that polyester doesn't shrink or break. It will be interesting to see what happens over the long term, but, as a collector, I'd prefer to own prints on ESTAR-base stock. Note that camera stock will continue to be on an acetate base; ESTAR is just used for intermediate and print elements.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-06-2000, 12:39 PM:

Actually, polyester film has been around since the mid-1950's, when it was invented by DuPont ("CRONAR" and "MYLAR") Compared to other film base materials, it is very stable.

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 12-06-2000, 03:03 PM:

Thanks for the links, John.

I'm still curious if anyone else has any anecdotes to report regarding using FG on their VS prints.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-07-2000, 10:33 PM:

OK. Here you go!

I have a 1983 LPP 5 reel feature that has a stinking reel one, with some warpage, and reels 2-5 with a slight odor, but no problems. I ran it several times on my Holmes before I got FilmGuard. The smell would really cook out of the film!

After I got the FG, I cleaned all the reels. This was in September 1999. R1 has a slight odor, still, but the warp is gone. Reels 2-5 are odorless. Only Reel one has been re-treated, so far. I keep this feature away from the collection. It's too bad, because the film is one of my favorite titles!

I used FG on an Estar print of "This Is The Army" (LPP 1982 print) and the chattering in the old Eiki was gone. I just used the product on a 50 year old home movie before I transferred it to tape. It looked NEW! I'm on bottle #3!

------------------

"It's the suspense that gets me!"--B. Bunny

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 12-08-2000, 07:33 AM:

That's very encouraging, Bruce. I know that Brad has never claimed FG will cure VS, but I hope it may retard it. This week I bought a Kelmar media cleaner, film-tech media pads and the FilmGuard itself. I'm really looking forward to trying it on some of my more heavily used prints, as well as a slightly buckled VS print I got for free.

Thanks for all your replies.