Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film-Guard´s effect on other treatments

This is topic Film-Guard´s effect on other treatments 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=002994

Posted by Jonas Heijkenskjold (Member # 1085) on 01-21-2002, 07:26 AM:

Mr Pytlak mentioned that PTR´s doesn´t work on a FG-treated film. Did someone try this. If so, what were the results?

I´m asking because we have six platters using PTR´s now and I´d like to try FG on one of them, using media cleaners. Furthermore PTR´s are the recommended way to go from our service company, and I don´t wanna be made guilty for other people not to be able to use their cleaning rolls. Please no rant now about PTR´s only beeing usable for clothes. When used on every show and cleaned thoroughly inbetween, I´ve found them to do good. After beeing away from work for 2 - 3 days, the prints are quite dirty again. (I have a hard time convincing people to use them) I know, you ranters will say the prints will be better off if they don´t, but if you saw the state of our own company trailers, THX trailers and other stuff that go on every show......up to last month they were cleaned at best once a week, and they´re really dirty. I learned just a month ago that they should be used on every show! The company actually teaches to use them only once in a while. And that they need not be changed for new ones!

Does FG has any effects on other protective treatments like Gelflex, which is used for some prints in Sweden?

How is FG on the environment? What chemicals are in it? Our company has an environmental policy. And my conutry has environmental laws.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-21-2002, 07:35 AM:

Film treatments like FilmGuard may build up on the surface of the polyurethane PTRs, reducing their cleaning effectiveness. Use one or the other.

I recall that Brad has a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) available to answer your other questions.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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 Jonas Heijkenskjold (Member # 1085) on 01-21-2002, 07:41 AM:

Hmm, then will i actually ruin it for other projectionist using FG since it is not widespread here, and the prints I get usually go to other city theatres or into the country afterwards. Or will it evaporate in time? If so , in what time?

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 01-21-2002, 08:03 AM:

I should let Brad answer for himself, but he has stated before that FG evaporates within a year. My personal experience is that it's gone to the touch and to the eye in less time than that, but perhaps a microscopic layer remains.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-21-2002, 12:25 PM:

The solution to your query is simple. Select a couple of new prints to use as demos for FilmGuard and label them as such. Use the PTRs on your prints as you have been doing, and use FilmGuard on the selected demo prints. So long as you are not alternating between the two cleaners, you will be able to see a direct comparison as to how each of the cleaners perform by comparing one print to another.

Posted by Jonas Heijkenskjold (Member # 1085) on 01-21-2002, 05:54 PM:

Yes, that was what I thought of doing. But the print will change screen eventually and the cleaners will stick to their respective platters, unless I get those brackets. And after a couple of weeks the print will ship to another theater. The different cleaners at our own house isn´t really a problem, but I wouldn´t want to ruin other theaters PTR´s. Maybe that´s not a big deal either.....?

Brad, can you also say anything on the last two questions in my first post? Also do you know of any Swedish users you could direct me to?

Thanks. Jonas.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-21-2002, 08:17 PM:

Not to worry about after you ship the print. The residue will be so light (assuming you follow the directions enclosed) that it won't be a problem. I actually do know of a few theaters that use both types of cleaner in the same booth and do flip flop them and have had no problem.

What is Gelflex? Is this like 3M PhotoGuard?

Email me and I will send you an MSDS sheet on FilmGuard. It is not a hazardous material.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-22-2002, 02:26 AM:

Ive noticed that it doesn't work very well with snipes from Fimack that have been coated with Scothguard (a hardened version of Photoguard If i remember correctly?). During the initial coating of these, instead of seeing some streaks, you see little bubbles on the screen.
I wish we didnt have snipes with Scotchguard.
I personally like Filmguard better.

Since I only have 6 cleaners at a 24 screen theatre, each print only gets cleaned for a full day once a week.
While its not running, you can see it start to dry and it will look like there are splotches on the film (at least when its during a black spot with no picture), but it does not show up on screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-22-2002, 05:49 AM:

James noted: "While its not running, you can see it start to dry and it will look like there oar splotches on the film (at least when its during a black spot with no picture), but it does not show up on screen."

If you are seeing "oar (oil?) splotches" on the film as it dries, you should definitely reapply. I suspect you might also see some of these splotches as "mottle" on the screen during light scenes.

Almost nothing sticks to PhotoGard (3M ScotchGard Film Protector). You even need a special splicing tape to be sure the splices stick:
http://www.3m.com/market/consumer/photogard/overview.html

Posted by Jonas Heijkenskjold (Member # 1085) on 01-22-2002, 07:20 AM:

Brad, I´ll email you.

Gelflex is manufactured by Rotebro filmservice, who are, (I´m sort of qouting from their website), "the leading company in the Nordic countries for restoring and preserving film. (.....) Gelflex is a treatment that makes the film anti-static and protects it from scratches, drying and dust. It also gives the image better brilliance."

Sounds like FilmGuard, though I think it is permanent, and they treat it in their laboratory. Sometimes we get prints from the Swedish Film Institute (SFI), and they are often treated with Gelflex. I don´t know what´s in it.

Rotebro filmservice:
http://www.sfi.se/omsfi/orfs/orfslab/orfslab.htm orhttp://www.filmhuset.se/rotebro/
in english: SFI http://www.sfi.se/eng/eng.htm

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2002, 10:00 AM:

And... that Photoguard crap smells like burning rubber when it goes through the projector! YEEECH!!
FilmGuard makes the smell stronger, although it doesn't seem to have any adverse effects.

It's just that the first time I ran FG on one of those Filmack Snipes and smelled the result I kinda' panicked for a minute until I realized what was happening.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-22-2002, 12:05 PM:

Sorry, John, that was a typo.
Instead of "oar" it was supposed to say "are"
I edited my post so I dont confuse anyone else.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-22-2002, 01:49 PM:

Actually James, the effect you were describing does not have any adverse effects. Terminology is confusing here with words such as streaking and splotches. If you were never to re-apply FilmGuard again to that print, it would not cause any projectable marks nor cause any projection problems and over a period of time would simply evaporate off. A common "urban legend" is that once a print is FilmGuarded that it HAS to be for the rest of it's life...that is absolutely not so.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-23-2002, 02:34 AM:

Brad, I hope I didnt give the impression that it had any adverse effects. What I was trying to say was that it appears to have dried (although it hasnt dried completely) and looks like it could have "splotches" (couldnt think of a better word) and that there is no negative effect on screen presentation.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-25-2002, 04:37 AM:

I know PhotoGuard does produce an odor when it is first run through a projector, but that disappears very quickly, and I must say, the stuff works extremely well -- the snipes we've gotten from Filmack all have the coating and it is really like a coating of plastic that really resists scratching. We have snipes that are 15 years old that still look like new. With the wear and tear that snipes get (and their cost) it is a real advantage to have them so well protected. 3M claims that although the film seems to be an coated with what seems to be an impenetrable coating, PhotoGuard lets the film breath so there is no VS issues with it.

I looked into having this applied to some collector prints but the cost was prohibitive. I looked into if it could be applied in-house -- yes, if you purchase one of 3M's very expensive application/curing machines (it's a polymer of some sort that needs to be cured with ultraviolet light). So, short of this product which is beyond the reach of most collectors and commercial theatre chains, FilmGuard seems to be the next best alternative.