Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is Film-Guard?

This is topic What is Film-Guard? 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=002260

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-11-2001, 03:20 PM:

Hello everyone.

I've ordered a bottle of film-guard. I've done for my own curiosity: we don't have any cleaner device (I clean the film each week manually) and I've bought it just because I would like to see how it works on little piece of print (I'm trying it on Dolby trailers that are very expensive!).
When I've opened the FG bottle, I had no doubt. In Italy we have a spray lubricant called "CRC". I don't know if it exist in USA. Well, Film-Guard smells EXACTLY like CRC. Also touching it I have the same sensation. I will try to clean a print with CRC...
Brad, mine was just a tought, I'm not accusing you of course!
And, most important, I have to try the cleaned trailers...

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2001, 05:26 PM:

I've never heard of CRC. Who makes it?

Also remember that 1 ounce of FG is enough to clean an entire print. Most people go a little overboard when they clean a film by hand. Not that you will, but just something to take note of.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-11-2001, 05:38 PM:

Brad: I am sure that Antonio is referring to one of the spray lubricant products from CRC:
http://www.crcindustries.com

Aaron

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-11-2001, 05:59 PM:

Ya gotta love a company with a product called "Screwloose"

Could be something to add to the practical joke thread.

"Hey newbie, go up in the booth and see if Joe has a screwloose!"

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-11-2001, 07:17 PM:

Actually, Brad's formula is a concoption of seven secret herbs and spices...

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-11-2001, 07:57 PM:

Antonio
Get the Kelmar cleaner, you'll be glad you did. I don't think you'll get a real good example of how well it can work, using FG by hand

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-11-2001, 09:58 PM:

The pic on the left was taken several months ago. I am still nursing that same bottle today!

I always apply FG by hand and have had excellent results using layers of soft cloth between the rewinds.

One of my IB prints looks 200% better than it did before. 100% for the image, and 100% for the scratches in the soundtrack area!

It would cost waay--too---much for me to get a Kelmar cleaner, much less adapt it to a Holmes 8! (good )

Even the 16mm candy gauge junk looks and runs beautifully.

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-12-2001, 06:39 AM:

Brad,

Aaron is right. It seems that CRC industries is also in USA. Try their CRC 5-55 or the "marine" one and compare it with Film Guard.
Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I've noted that applying FG by hands is not simple, too much FG go on print. Unfortunately I don't think that my manager will buy a print cleaner for me. We have to buy a cleaner for another theater. I will try to convince my manager about film-guard (I have to see the results on my trailers before!! ).

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-12-2001, 05:17 PM:

For what it's worth, I'll disagree with the "don't apply FG by hand" people. I've had nothing but positive experiences with applying it by hand to 16mm prints. I've used the Christie cleaner for 35mm, but I don't see any reason why hand application wouldn't work, although it would definitely be harder to get an even coat of FG.

Posted by Rachel Carter (Member # 693) on 05-13-2001, 01:31 AM:

What is Film Guard? A tasty new beverage developed by Brad. It tastes as good as it works!

Everytime that I have used FG I have applied it by hand (seeing how thats the only way I can do it at my theater ), it works great. Just like some of the guys above me said, make sure you don't overdue it. Just a little bit it as you need.

Getting all my prints after the big guys have handled, thrown them on the floor, and spilled beverages of MANY kinds on them FG makes a huge difference in the quality of the print.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2001, 10:14 AM:

Antonio, Bruce,
Ill give you a deal on a Kelmar cleanerr that would be hard to turn down. They cost less than you might think!

Mark @ GTS

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-13-2001, 06:58 PM:

Mark,

I'm just a projectionist, I can't pay for my theater!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-13-2001, 09:42 PM:

Mark:

I'm just broke.

The way I do it is giving excellent results.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-14-2001, 10:04 AM:

Antonio,
Get the theater to buy it....why should you have to?
Bruce, Stop drinking the stuff and then you could afford one. Drinking Film-Guard gets a bit expensive!
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2001, 11:23 AM:

Not being a projectionist, I can't really find use for Film Guard (other than perhaps drinking it --how many bottles does it take to get a good buzz?).

What I would like to know is where I can order the spray bottle of Baby Quiet. It seems to be impossible to find on most store shelves, probably thanks to all the meth addicts and glue sniffers in the area.

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-14-2001, 03:38 PM:

Mark,

It wasn't what I meant!

My theater will never buy a film cleaner because have already an "human cleaner".
I *personally* bought film-guard because I was very curious to see how does it works.
I will not buy also a cleaner!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-15-2001, 12:20 AM:

Bobby:

I get high on fumes. Dont even have to take the top off the bottle.

You can find BABY QUIET on the shelf next to KITTY QUIET at any good hardware store. One squirt and my cats just get happy and go away.

I'd guess that a Film-Guard hangover would be one of the worst experiences of my life. All that lubrication. Yecch!

Just imagine, waking in the morning after a hard night of guzzlin'. You'll be looking into the lens while a Tech feature is running and asking everyone in the theater where the color went?

Or, you could just become obnoxious and throw FG bombs on the patrons.

No, that wouldn't work. You drank it all.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-15-2001, 10:20 AM:

Antonio,
Thats too bad as you are missing out on the best aspect of using Filmguard. The human factor has nothing to do with using Filmguard in the best possible way, it simply works best if done with the Kelmar cleaner. Perhaps you are not really too concerned about giving your patrons the best show possible that can be done??
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-15-2001, 11:48 AM:

Mark,

I think that you are missing what I mean.

I paid the filmguard's bottle with my money. I'm just the projectionist of my theater, not a manager.
My management will never buy a film cleaner for my theater for many reasons.

I was just curious to see how filmguard works and I bought a bottle. I pay a lot of money because there were a lot of shipping costs.
Now, I'm trying FG on few Dolby trailers, to see how does it works.
I really don't know if I'll try it on an entire film, to have the bottle empty in few time.
I care the composition but I cannot pay for it!!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-15-2001, 03:43 PM:

Hi Antonio, I know what you are saying. There are many foolish management people here in the States too that will not buy it. I have many projectionists come in just to buy a bottle for themselves and take care of static with it. Just try to use as small a quantity as you can when you clean film. Too much Filmguard is as bad as having a really dirty print!
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-15-2001, 04:29 PM:

Antonio,

Ignore anyone who speaks to you about how great FILM GUARD is, and that you should be using it.

If it is as good as they say, they should be sending you sample bottle, after and after.

I work for a very big company in Australia, we have heard of Film Guard, but they are doing us no favours in trying to promote it.
(We are yet to find a way to get a sample)

Perhaps the US market it all they require??

The normal course of running your projection room no problems should accure:

-Brain wrap arounds caused by static (just raise humitity -Open the bio door for 5 mins)

-Prints that look they have been dragged across the floor (simply, vacuum or mop the floor EVERY night - this IS important)

-PTR Rinse in detergent as much as possible run, by-pass if not dry in time.
(If you don't have a by-pass roller 0 make one)

- THINK where and how our prints getting all this crap on them, when they looked rather good at first run.

ANSWER -
AIR-CON filters to bio are always full
of junk - clean them or any air source to bio

MOP/VACUUM floor every night
It would be nice to cover the prints/plate, and get the cleaner to vacuum/Mop the projection room
but as far as I know, it is illegeal to allow cleaners into the projection room.

Bill.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2001, 04:31 PM:

Hey, I worked for a year at a place where management was too cheap to buy splicing tape! I was buying the really good stuff that Christy's sells for $5 a roll (out of my own pocket) until I realized that Neumade tape was just as good and much cheaper. Surely the occasonal bottle of FG won't break the bank... In any case, a bottle of FG lasts a pretty long time. I haven't had the chance to use it in a theatre yet, so I can't give exact numbers, but I've cleaned dozens of really bad prints at home with it and still haven't used a third of a bottle (most of these were admittedly 16mm prints, but many required multiple cleanings).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-15-2001, 04:46 PM:

Bill,

Before bashing any product or your efforts to get a sample, how about contacting the manufacturer directly? Guess that never crossed your mind???

Mopping the floor and raising humidity and the like is all well and good, but prints will still get dirty over time regardless. Maybe they won't get dirty enough to fall below your specific requirements, but that doesn't mean that they are not getting below my spec or someone else's spec. FilmGuard is not designed to be a replacement for good booth practices. It is something to make good booth practices and the presentation that much better. Nowhere has it ever been advertised as a replacement for a good operator and good procedures.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-15-2001, 05:03 PM:

"Ignore anyone who speaks to you about how great FILM GUARD is, and that you should be using it. If it is as good as they say, they should be sending you sample bottle, after and after."

Huh?
I use it religiously. The methods you speak of are nice but they don't clean the film or lubricate the gate. If you've never tried this stuff how can you pass judgement like you have?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-15-2001, 05:13 PM:

Mark,

Yes, I've noted that too much filmguard is not good. However, since I never saw a well filmguarded print, I cannot understand how much filmguatd should stay on the print!!
I will do my best.

Bill,
Your "recommendations" are good. However I really don't think that keep clean the booth is enought. Not all projectors are perfectly aligned, not all prints are perfect-printed.
I agree with you: clean floor and AC filters is important but I really don't think that is enough.
About a sample of Film-Guard... I think that a bottle is cheap enough to doesn't require samples.

Bye
Antonio

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-16-2001, 04:47 AM:

Bill, come on out to the Ritz and take a look for yourself. It'd be good to see you again after all this time.

You think your prints look good now? So did I.

Throw out the PTR's. The prints will be cleaner without them.

------------------
Children really brighten up your life...they never turn off lights.

Posted by Rachel Carter (Member # 693) on 05-16-2001, 01:29 PM:

Bill,

What if you don't work in a first run theater and the film is a mess when you get it? Will cleaning the floors help then?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2001, 01:49 PM:

Bill, Indeed you are dead wrong. Film-Guard makes such a dramatic difference in on screen look that to not use it is a disservice to your patrons. I ship Film-Guard to John Wilson and if you want a free trial I'd be glad to ship you a quart bottle and a box of media, but you must pay for shipping and you must also have a Kelmar Cleaner. That is all I ask.

A Quart bottle of film-guard retails for 35.00 here in the states! That bottle will last at least 6 months in a 6 screen theater when used properly.

PTR rollers are a joke for theatres. They were designed mainly to keep negative clean on printers in labs. I refuse to sell them anymore to my customners.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2001, 02:29 PM:

John Wilson said: "Throw out the PTR's. The prints will be cleaner without them."

Mark said: "PTR rollers are a joke for theatres. They were designed mainly to keep negative clean on printers in labs."

As one who helped develop PTR (Particle Transfer Roller) film cleaning technology, I take exception to those statements!

PTRs are a very efficient, cost-effective, and low risk film cleaning technology. Unlike other cleaning methods, PTRs do not use solvents or risk "rubbing" contact with the film. They are widely used by labs and film-to-video transfer facilities to clean irreplacable negatives. PTRs are the preferred way of cleaning prints on almost all IMAX projectors.

Yes, with a particularly dirty print, the PTRs can become overloaded with dirt particles, and "transfer" them back to the film (after several cleanings, the dirt level decreases dramatically). No, PTRs cannot clean oily deposits or fingerprints off the film. Yes, you do usually need to wash and dry them before using them for another show (but one set of rollers can clean at least a thousand showings).

PTR film cleaning technology is useful for any film where the application of foreign materials on the film could be detrimental to the use or long-term stability (e.g., negatives, IMAX prints). For general release prints, it is certainly ONE of the good options available.
http://www.fpcfilm.com/US/en/motion/FPC/fpc/ptr_main.html
http://www.fpcfilm.com/US/en/motion/FPC/fpc/ptr_prod.html
http://www.sanlabsystems.com/ptrclean.html
http://www.ebu.ch/tech_t3289.pdf

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2001, 02:47 PM:

Labs, yes PTRs would be preferred.

IMAX, well the field flattener design prohibits any kind of solvent from being used and I don't know where exactly a dry media cleaner would be mounted, so I wouldn't use the word "preferred".

Regular theaters dealing with non-clean room environments, PTRs don't do that good of a job. Even brand new prints coming in from the depots are generally quite dirty from the old shipping cans and the dusty clip-together reels. PTRs only seem to be effective in controlled film handling rooms, of which I have never seen a suitabe projection booth meet.

Anyone who has had a chance to perform one of the following tests, feel free to list it below:

Test #1 PTR cleaning vs. dry media cleaner

Test #2 PTR cleaning vs. media cleaner with FilmGuard

I have performed both and the first test clearly beat out a set of brand new PTRs over a one week period. The second test is hands down over PTRs. There really is no risk of abrasion from the rubbing action on a media cleaner when used "wet". Only running the media pads "dry" can cause scratching.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2001, 03:01 PM:

During Kodak's development of PTR film cleaning technology over ten years ago, we ran extensive testing in-house, and in theatres. During the first few runs of a new print, the PTRs would load with dirt from the perforations and edge of the print, where the scuffing from the lab printers and processors generated some debris. But after about five runs, the PTRs were pretty clean after running a feature, as was the print.

Likewise, a used print that was really dirty would load up the PTRs after a few reels, making them less effective. But after several runs, most of the dirt was removed.

PTRs are best used as an on-line cleaner, used for every showing of the print (much as IMAX uses them). As noted, they have the advantage of being very low risk (no rubbing contact --- a media cleaner can act like sandpaper if it picks up abrasive dirt particles) and not leaving any foreign material on the film. They are not the only way to clean film, but IMHO, they are a GOOD way.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2001, 04:11 PM:

While I must say that I prefer FilmGuard over PTR's, I have actually had one good experience with the sticky rollers.

It was with out replacement print of "Titanic". Our other print got so dirty that either Paramount or Mann automatically ordered us a new one. We used PTR's quite a bit on those prints, which were brand new, yet they still got very dirty. The new print was used, but in excellent condition. I put PTRs on it for the first few runs and they took off a minimal amount of dirt. After that they would not remove anything for each subsequent run. I really don't know how to explain this, unless I got a print that had previously been FilmGuarded (P5'd) during Brad's test phase.

Now that I think of it, that may have been the case, as Brad did have several test theaters at the time.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2001, 04:48 PM:

Couldn't have happened Joe. There were no test theaters before yours anywhere near the Colorado depot. Also, there were only two theaters that were test theaters that ran Titanic and those prints played for 5 and 6 months respectively at each theater (one being a 70mm print), plus I know which theater both of them ended up being couried to on their final nights.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2001, 04:55 PM:

I wonder why that print was so clean and stayed so clean? It certainly wasn't normal. City of Angels... that was normal! We used PTRs on it religiously and it got so dirty that there was more black then picture!

Must have been a fluke.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 05-17-2001, 09:39 AM:

PTR's work better than nothing at all. Back when we had major shedding or scuffing problems (Triathlon), an example that immediately jumps to mind is _As Good as It Gets_, the "black snow" on screen at reel joins was extremely distracting. I started using PTR's. The PTR's really cleaned up the particles on the prints. PTR's do not make the print worse than no cleaner at all.

Yes, PTR's won't instantly clean a print. But PTR's work very nicely if you use them every show.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2001, 09:44 AM:

John,
I am not against PTR's at all. They definately have their place in the industry. I just feel that with the advent of Filmguard they are not of much use in day to day theater booth operation anymore. They require cleaning(frequently) and this takes effort on the part of the booth crew. Most booth crews seem to put forth as little effort as they can and since Filmguard is less effort to use and does other things to make their job easier it is now the prefered thing at least in my area. Indeed Filmguard has made runnable prints out of junk prints at theatres around here. Also remember that in the mountain states there is more than normal dust than other areas have to deal with. I can only say that with Filmguard my customers tell me they are batting 100 but with PTR's its 50/50 as to weather it will make any difference at all.
I do not however reccommend Film-Guard for use on Studio prints and old I.B. Tech stuff that is extremely valualable until more is known about it.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2001, 11:31 AM:

Mark,

I've had tests going on now for 12 years on old IB tech prints, magnetic striped prints and just about everything else (except nitrate) with perfect results. It is safe to use.

On one of a kind studio vault prints (which most people will not handle), I would agree that the safest thing to do is not clean those in any manner and let a professional lab do it.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 05-17-2001, 12:22 PM:

Brad -- please elaborate. You've never tried FilmGuard on nitrate, or you've used FilmGuard on nitrate with imperfect results?

I ask because I've been making digital scans of individual frames of old nitrate clips, and I've found that FilmGuard does an amazing job of eliminating *all* of the rain on old, heavily worn film. I have a couple of "before" and "after" scans on my home computer that I'll try and remember to bring in and post.

I'm only applying it to single frames, and I've been wiping it off immediately afterwards with fast-evaporating film cleaner, but if there's some reason that I shouldn't be using FilmGuard on nitrate then I'd appreciate knowing.

Thanks - John

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2001, 12:55 PM:

Sorry, I should've worded that better. I have never tested FG on nitrate film because I have never been in possession of any. I have tested it on basically every other kind of film stock and have had perfect results on everything, and it is safe to use. I do agree with Mark above though on not using any form of film cleaning on vault prints, that they should only be cleaned by a lab.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2001, 02:23 PM:

Brad,
I have a number of valualable I.B. prints but I'd never consider putting anything on them unless its an inert cleaner that evaporates and leaves nothing at all on the film. The problem with these solvents is that most of the fumes are inhaled by whoever is doing the cleaning. SO IMHO I would rather have these professionally cleaned if they were real dirty. I once had an I.B. of a very famous Hitchcock film and when I sold it the buyer, who is a famous film restoration person was concerned that it had not been cleaned or treaded in any way. Fortunately it had not. For this sort of thing I always tell customers its at your own risk.
Personally, I don't think 12 years is long enough for this sort of test on this type of film. It should really probably be done like someone like Kodak in a controled lab where they are able to do accellerated testing. There were some cleaners that could actually make the dyes bleed a bit if you were not careful. I can't remember the names off hand though. Filmreneu or something like that was one of them.
I absolutely agree with you on the studio stuff.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-17-2001, 02:42 PM:

I have seen prints where projector oil had been used as a "lubricant". Not only did the oily deposits show up on the screen as streakiness and "mottle", the oil was able to penetrate into the slighty abraded areas of the emulsion and leach out the oil-soluble dyes. After awhile, the areas of dye loss showed up as tiny green or yellow spots on the screen (especially in dark areas that received the most radiant energy during projection), and wiping the oily surface of the film with a white tissue showed a distinct pink coloration from the magenta dye that had been leached from the film by the oil.

Here is what SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151 "Lubrication of 35-mm Motion-Picture Prints for Projection" has to say:
____________________________________________

4.2 Unsuitable lubricants
The lubricant and solvent used should have no
adverse effect on the film, and should be effective in
prolonging the projection life of the print. Mineral oils
(motor oil, projector oil) may dissolve and leach out
the oil-soluble dyes in the film, and should not be
used. Nonvolatile oils (mineral or silicone) may cause
mottle or undesirable sticking together of the film
surfaces, which may cause dirt particles to adhere
to the film. Some materials may attack the film base
or emulsion, or have an adverse effect on image
stability or projection life. Avoid using solvents that
are flammable or explosive, or that pose a health or
environmental hazard (e.g., benzene or carbon
tetrachloride).
____________________________________________

Posted by Mike Judge (Member # 558) on 05-17-2001, 04:04 PM:

Manager operators and construction dust that's all I'm going to say. Film-guard is a blessing in my booth. I'm definetly Pro Film-Guard.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2001, 05:39 PM:

Mark, humorous as it may seem, those "treated" prints your friend was so worried about actually were cleaned by film laboratories. Still, I won't argue the point that if an individual ownes a one-of-a-kind print that is worth a ton of money (or just for preservation elements) that the call is up to them. I don't think that any film cleaning solvent or apparatus comes with a guarantee that it won't harm the film after 50 years. Still, with 12 years now in testing, many of the identical batches of film that were stored dry are now unrunnable whereas the FG copies still run just fine with no defects. Granted these tests have been performed under very bad conditions (like my mega hot Texas garage and sealing films in cans in the garage), but thus far I have not had one FG print show signs of deterioration. Hence my comments above.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-18-2001, 06:32 AM:

Until about five years ago, most film labs used 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) as the film cleaning solvent in their ultrasonic film cleaners. It was also the most commonly used solvent in proprietary film cleaning/lubricating liquids sold to theatres and film exchanges. The Montreal Protocol has banned the manufacture of this solvent because it can contribute to depletion the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. Today, many labs use tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), which is a solvent long used by the dry cleaning industry. Other solvents are also being used. Here is a link to information about film cleaning solvents:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/environment/solvent.shtml

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-18-2001, 09:10 AM:

I'm assuming that Brad was referring to the "treatment" process that was used in the early 1980s for many IB Tech prints. Apparently, it worked really well at reducing visible scratches and physical film damage, but also tended to cause the prints to turn vinegar. I have a few prints like this and they are indeed stunningly beautiful on screen, but they're sufficiently warped that they don't focus properly across the frame and don't take up evenly even with large-hub reels and the takeup tension cranked up.

I don't know much about the process itself. Maybe someone else does. I do know that it's not the standard "film cleaning" process that is used for negative stock and wet-gate printing, which (along with now-illegal stuff like Vitafilm) is apparently safe.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-18-2001, 09:20 AM:

I must come out on the side of PTRs are not for theatres. They load up far too quickly and tend to redistribute the dirt all over the film.

As to cleaning them, nothing beats masking tape that I have found...pretend you are shinning shows with some 2" wide tape and the rollers will come clean as new...and now drying time.

At best PTRs can be used to keep dirt from increasing but for most theatres that isn't enough, with polyester prints the gate will cause the print to flake off yet more, it is a losing battle.

I keep a set of fresh PTRs for running EK prints though.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-18-2001, 10:43 AM:

Cleaning PTR's with adhesive tape can be fast and effective, as washing in water and drying can take time. But only use tape that has low-stick adhesive that doesn't leave a sticky residue on the PTR, and doesn't rip pieces of soft polyurethane from the PTR surface. It's still a good idea to occasionally use mild dishwashing soap and water to clean the PTRs to remove any oily deposits they pick up. In a theatre environment, a good schedule might be to use tape during the day's runs, and wash and dry the rollers overnight.

Here is a tape that is useful for this application:

3M White Paper Tape #256
An ideal graphic design and general purpose artist tape. The surface of this tape is smooth and easy to
write on with pen, marker or pencil, and pencil marks are completely erasable. It adheres well but has a
low-tack adhesive, making it easily repositionable if necessary. Use it for hinging, holding boards to
tables, corrections, silhouetting, mounting, etc. The opaque surface is great for covering errors, and the
non-glare backing is ideal for photographic applications.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-18-2001, 11:11 AM:

I have found 3M packing tape the best method of cleaing the rollers.
Some labs use sticky tape rollers to clean film or a web of tape cleaing the off line side of the PTR continously

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2001, 08:33 PM:

What ever happened to those sticky rollers that were made in Canada? I remember them about 10 or more years ago. They were quite gooey but worked really well till they completely filled up with crud. The interesting thing was that they seemed to gobble up the dirt and take it underneath the surface.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2001, 08:35 PM:

I was told that the process actually slightly melted the base side of the film to remove scratches and dirt and then was re-polished again before being wound up. I know that sounds kinda far fetched but I wonder if its true.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-18-2001, 10:18 PM:

Mark:

I believe you are referring to the "Dryper" rollers. I was never really impressed with them either.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-19-2001, 07:04 AM:

The "Dry Pur" rollers used a silicone putty as the "sticky" media to pick off the dirt particles. The dirt would eventually migrate into the putty, to be "gobbled up". When the putty filled with dirt, it needed to be replaced. Unfortunately, the putty sometimes chipped off and stuck to the film, and needed to be wrapped with a plastic strip between uses to keep its shape during the "rejuvenation" cycle where the dirt migrated into the putty. I do not recall any claims of scratch healing properties.

The Dry Pur rollers were sold by Restoration Film House in Belleville, Ontario, Canada.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-19-2001, 09:33 AM:

I usually found them the most effective as long as they got covered up or they would dry out.
They also controlled static and were also good at cleaning up oil motle.
The one thing is they cannot be used on a photoguarded print as it will literally glue itself to the roller

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-19-2001, 01:23 PM:

FILMGUARD - Supply of.

We are intersted in, who can/will
will import or ship FILMGUARD to
Australia and how much for ??

A sample bottle to Hoyts Corporation,
Greater Union/BC&C or Village/Roadshow
WILL believe me be a wise thing to do for who ever it that is selling the stuff.

We have no real reason to use
FILMGUARD, however............

Film Tech has for a long long time recommended this product, yet there seems
to be a problem getting the product.

Regards Bill.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2001, 01:37 PM:

Contact Ron or Dave at Cinema Products International.

ron@cinprod.com
or
dave@cinprod.com

They are the distrubitor and can work with you on whatever you need.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-20-2001, 10:10 AM:

I have been using PTR cleaning rollers for over a year now, and I find they are a satisfactory and safe method for keeping prints clean, mostly first run and occasional second run. And I wouldn't be without them when a couple of prints have shedded. A particularly dirty copy cleaned up very well by running through to myself and stopping every 15 minutes to clean the rollers. There is of course the costly SPECO cleaner which PTR rollers can be changed whilst running dirty film.

I use the shiny rollers, a neighbouring cinema prefers the matte type claiming they could be more efficient ? For the past few months after washing and drying, I now wipe over the PTRs with Isopropyl Alcohol, which brings them back to as good as new, and they are always nice and sticky every time, with no deterioration (that I know of).

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-20-2001, 02:30 PM:

Brad,

I'm now projecting one of the "filmguarded" Dolby trailer. Really, quality is very good. Only big scratches are already there. Dirty and little scratches are gone!!
I saw that Film Guard is not uniform on print. I've clean the print several times with a clean cloth after film guard (to have just a little coating of product) but when the print rewind, next time film guard is no more uniform on print. However It seems that it canno be seen on screen. Is it normal? (I really don't know if I was clear!!)

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-20-2001, 04:35 PM:

Brad, I thank you so much for you replies.
(Both on the forum and pvt email - how you find the time is beyond me!!)

In regard to Filmguard, Im not personally
requesting sample bottles.

I'm just saying that the BIG three
cinema chains in Australia DONT use it
and there might be be a market for it here.
For whoever it is who makes the stuff.

I often post at 4am (local) very tired.
So excuse any dumb things said, by me!!

Bill.

TO ALL
About PTR's like I said before FORGET THEM.
Vacuum your bio box(s) every night.

AND get one of those static mops, they suck up every dead skin flake and LOSS OF HAIR from your OLD projectionists (me)!!!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-20-2001, 04:59 PM:

Antonio, the best way to let FG smooth itself out is just to let it do it's own thing. During normal takeup, it will even itself out through use. Even though it appears physically on the film as streaks, it is constantly being "moved around" on the print with every playing. As you have noted, nothing appears on screen from it.

Bill, no problem. CPI is working on an Australian dealer right now. In the interim, have anyone who is interested contact CPI directly for samples or dealership.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-20-2001, 07:38 PM:

Bill,

I was serious about coming out to the Ritz to see it at work. It's again done wonders to our latest crop of used prints...this week's is '15 Minutes' Thursday and Friday without FG. Cruddy 2nd hand print...

Saturday and more so Sunday...like new.

You will never think you need this stuff until you see the results.

If you want, Michael can give you my mobile number. Give me a call and we'll work something out.

John

------------------
Children really brighten up your life...they never turn off lights.

Posted by Mike Judge (Member # 558) on 05-21-2001, 05:00 AM:

Bill,
You should be happy with it once you try it. I held a special training session with it. I had before and after prints, and currently all of my people are going FG crazy. It makes such a difference, you'll be amazed. I have the comment cards to attest! I even work in a muti-plex! A true testament to how great it is!

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-21-2001, 05:26 AM:

Brad,

Thanks. I asked that just to understand if I put too much filmguard on print!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-21-2001, 06:45 AM:

Oh My god . Drypur Rollers

We did some tests for IMAX using this stuff with rollers about 5" Diameter.

Tests didn't last long as we ended up with the orange cleaning medium being picked up by the perfs on the film and being transferred to the rotor and as all you rolling loop heads know that is not a good idea

Did work kinda ok on 35 & 16mm running at less than 337.5 feet a minute though!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-21-2001, 10:43 AM:

!!!!!!