This is topic Another Film Guard Success 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=003711
Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-11-2002, 12:23 PM:
I just thought I'd share something with the Forum...we got in a lovely dye transfer print of a 40 year old title which was runnable but sadly showing very noticeable "ribboning". I took a chance and applied a fairly liberal dose of Film Guard, tightly reverse wound the print, and several days later found that the ribboning had relaxed to the point where it was hardly noticeable. The fact that any minor surface blemishes had also disappeared was a lucky strike extra. Great work Film Guard.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-11-2002, 12:30 PM:
I think many people would be surprised how much Filmguard relaxes acetate prints. Also acetate film seems to be able to absorb nearly unlimited amounts of Filmguard so it is not as risky putting lots and lots on. I had a very brittle acetate print not too long ago and Filmguard made it runable, when it otherwise would have broken every show.
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 07-11-2002, 12:38 PM:
I have tried using Film Renew on some prints of mine that had some curls in it and after soaking & tight winding for a couple of weeks I could tell any difference. Maybe I need to try Film Guard.
Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-11-2002, 12:46 PM:
Sam: No knocks on Film Renew, but it's a thin, volatile fluid which quickly dries on the print. I know you mentioned soaking, and I've done that too, but the way Film Guard stays on the print for an extended period it's a hell of a lot neater and seems to accomplish the job. Overall, I've cut way down on Film Renew and find that Film Guard does just as good or better for cleaning, and is much easier to use for base restoration.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-11-2002, 07:40 PM:
What is Film Renew? Anyone got an MSDS?
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 07-11-2002, 10:56 PM:
I can second this. I have a 16mm IB Tech print that had so much curl that it wouldn't stay in focus as it ran through the gate. I applied a heavy coat of filmguard, and got the same result -- the print relaxed and now it runs flat with no focus problems.
Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 07-12-2002, 04:31 AM:
Out of interest, I have quite a lot of 8mm home movie film that my father shot when I was just lad (1950's vintage). I have been reviewing some of the footage with a mind to transfering it to DVD. Some of the oldest stuff has a kind of tessellated cracking in the emulsion which is very visible in white areas. Now I believe Kodak 8mm film from that period was acetate. Is is possible or practical to apply FilmGuard to 8mm film, and if so would it help in this instance?
------------------
Ray Derrick
President/Chief Engineer
Panalogic Corporation Sydney, Australia
Phone: 61 (0)2 9894 6655 Fax: 61 (0)2 9894 6935
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-12-2002, 05:03 AM:
Yes and yes. I've done it many times with old home movies on standard 8, Super 8 and 16mm film (some from the 50s) and I think you will be genuinely amazed at the results.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-12-2002, 06:08 AM:
Kodak home movie film has always been safety film. AFAIK, film from the 50's and 60's would be cellulose triacetate base. If the film was stored cool and dry and in air-permeable containers (e.g., boxes), it should be in good shape, except for slight shrinkage. If stored improperly (hot, humid, sealed containers), there may be the onset of "vinegar syndrome" where hydrolysis causes the base to degrade and release acetic acid vapor:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml Even if you transfer the film images to video for convenience, KEEP THE ORIGINAL FILMS! Stored properly, they will likely outlast the video, and can be transferred again when the next format of video arrives.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2002, 07:27 AM:
The question on transfering to video is...what form for storage? I don't mind shelling out for a good telecine job to get it to a digital medium that exceeds the 8mm resolution, but I want the transfer to be something that will indeed freeze the quality. I don't think DVD will do it for me...I'm not "that" impressed by it.Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 07-12-2002, 08:09 AM:
Oh yes I agree, which format indeed. Similar problem with audio on magnetic tapes. At the moment there aren't too many choices for video material, unless you want to spend a small fortune. I mainly want the DVDs so family and relatives can watch them without the danger of further damage to the films. Also you can skip through the really boring stuff which you cannot do when projecting film. So yes John, I do intend to keep the original films and store them as best I can. Thanks for the tips in that regard.So what is the best way to apply FilmGuard to 8mm stock?
------------------
Ray Derrick
President/Chief Engineer
Panalogic Corporation Sydney, Australia
Phone: 61 (0)2 9894 6655 Fax: 61 (0)2 9894 6935
Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-12-2002, 08:20 AM:
Probably not the topic for this forum, but I share the frustration of which format to use for transfer. I've got a load of 16mm silent stuff from the '30's-'50's which my father shot, including some amazingly good early Kodachromes, but I'm afraid his years of "attic storage" have begun to manifest themselves in the form of VS on some, including a 1938 trip to Europe (including Germany) which has some historical significance. I've got some time on these, but not forever sadly. They're not worth a fortune, but some are approaching the point where I won't have a second chance. Troubling.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2002, 12:02 PM:
Oh, I agree that DVD or even quick time is fine for distribution to family members. But what I want to find is a good medium to get them in the digital domain. Then as technology marches on, rather than go back to the telecine, convert from today's digital medium to tomorrow's. I would NEVER think of throwing out the films so long as they are runable. As to Kodachrome looking good after the many decades...you bet! That was an exceptionally designed film.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-12-2002, 01:55 PM:
Quick point: as far as I know, all camera films (with the exception of some high-speed and special military applications) are on acetate- or nitrate-base stock. This applies to all formats (8mm->65mm) through to the present day. ESTAR-base stock is only for intermediates, separations, and some (mostly recent) prints (and the aforementioned special-purpose stocks).As for video format, I'd be interested in this as well. Hopefully there is someone here who is familiar with the current state of 'rust' (as Josh would call it).
I do know that compressed digital formats (DVD, DV tape, Digital Betacam, etc.) are generally frowned upon by archivists. I have had some of my attempts at 16mm filmmaking transferred to Beta SP and dubbed to 1" tape for duplication to VHS; it's a great format and is ubiquitous in the professional world, but has recently been end-of-lifed by Sony and thus may not be the best long-term choice for storage. Apparently 1" C-type is almost dead now in the television world and it was the major broadcast format through most of the 1980s (and it's a better master for dubs than Beta SP).
Personally, I'm not too worried, since I know that 16mm original negative (and prints) will outlast any of today's video formats, but I agree that it's a good idea to get a high-quality video master as well.
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 07-12-2002, 02:58 PM:
Hey Brad,
How bout sending me a sample?
..........................................
...........................................
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-12-2002, 03:15 PM:
You can request a 4oz sample bottle from Cinema Products International. They generally have them at trade shows as well.800-891-1031
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-12-2002, 10:16 PM:
Steve dig out that old Mitchel BNC and the B&L anamorphs and shoot 4 track mag (foxholed) 35mm and make up IB prints
They will then be never obselete 
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-13-2002, 03:16 PM:
Gordon, We have the remains of the Mitchell Camer company here in Wilmington NC. I have the Projectors that they had. I have never seen so many small parts shelve upon shelve of parts. Cases and cases of manuals. They still sell parts to one and all that need them.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-13-2002, 03:25 PM:
Joe Dunton plans to bring back the Mitchell line in a limited basis and is annoncing it in the SFX trade magazines as "coming soon".
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Prdoducts Inc.
A former GC owner....... www.tvpmiami.com
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-13-2002, 03:34 PM:
You are right Joe is working on it. It is a fascinating place a lot of history
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-15-2002, 11:00 AM:
I am a believer in FilmGuard. Last summer I applied FG with a soaked pad to a slightly warped vinegar print of an LPP feature. Not only has the print relaxed, but the vinegar smell is still non-existant.I ran an IB 16mm print on 7/4 that is over 40 years old. The FG made it look like it was brand new!! I rewound it again just now (7/15) and it has lost most of the warp that old Technicolor prints are famous for!!
FG cant help all prints. I have a 1969 print that is vinegar/faded, and not even FG was able to do anything. Oh well, I dont expect the product to be a miracle worker, but it has exceeded my expectations several times!
Bruce (not ACTUALLY drinking it!)
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-15-2002, 09:18 PM:
Bruce, vinegared LPP? That's very sad. What year was it printed? BTW: Cheers!
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-16-2002, 10:21 AM:
Hi John. It is a 1983 print. R1 is vinegar and has some image color shift on the right side. The rest of the feature is in decent shape, but had the faint VS smell also. I dont smell it anymore.Reel 1 still looks nice, though. Since the major FG applications, it runs with none of the jittery focus problems that it used to have.
Bruce
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-17-2002, 10:31 AM:
Bruce McGee said: "R1 is vinegar and has some image color shift on the right side"Chances are that reel was stored for years on its side in a sealed container under conditions of heat and high humidity. The heat and humidity accelerated the onset of hydrolysis degradation of the triacetate base, and the acetic acid vapors were trapped and migrated to the right side of the roll, where they attacked the dyes.
Even now, cool and dry storage conditions will help prolong the life of the film, and the storage container should allow the venting of any acetic acid vapors, or use a sealed container with Molecular Sieves. Wind and inspect the print occasionally to let the film "breathe" and release any buildup of acid vapors or tension within the rolls.
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-17-2002, 08:08 PM:
Thanks John, YOU just stated the same thing that I was thinking about how this print got VS. It was in a warehouse in Dallas, and we all know it never gets hot in Dallas!!! For now, the good thing is that FG has either covered, or, arrested the vinegar syndrome. When it comes back is anybodys guess!! As I said, R1 has relaxed and runs smoothly. At least, the soundtrack side was not up!
Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 07-19-2002, 07:55 AM:
I'm happy to say that I expect to be joinging the 'Fans o Film Guard' in the next week Unfortunately I don't yet have access to a Kelmar cleaner (and am I the only one who thinks £550 is rather steep for a few cogs and a steel plate?) - so I'll also be in the smaller and more exclusive Film Guard Fellowship of Hand Application for the time being! I hope it's kinder to my lovely soft hands than Film Renew is!David
Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-19-2002, 08:10 AM:
David, I know what you're saying about Film Renew the way it leaves your hands irritated and even turns your fingers stark white. You'll have no such problem with Film Guard. It is greasy or oily feeling, but produces no irritation. I suspect it might be OK as hair tonic, too, if you like that slicked down look!
Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 07-19-2002, 08:32 AM:
I had wondered why most of the posters in this thread had abnormally tidy hairstyles - now I know!!David
Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-19-2002, 09:04 AM:
Tidy or not, David, I'm just grateful to have hair at my age.
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 07-19-2002, 12:47 PM:
Tidy hairstyles are for losers.
Afros all the way!!!
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-20-2002, 02:51 PM:
Yeah, James, Jr., I am going to tell my "scalp stylist" to give me that spectacular Afro style like you've got when I get my next cut....er polish!