Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filmguard on archival master elements

This is topic Filmguard on archival master elements 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=004176

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-06-2002, 07:34 AM:

We have a 1931 diacetate 16mm reversal original which a broadcaster wants to use a section from. The problem is that it's too shrunk and warped to go through a telecine in its current state. It is also very mouldy and has lots of cement splices which will need to be remade.

Ordinarily what we'd do in these circumstances is send it to a London facilities house to be ultrasonically cleaned and telecined on a Spirit (which has a very gentle film path). However, that isn't an option within the timescale and budget available.

I have used Filmguard on prints (for which we have other master elements) which are in a similar condition before, but never on original or other master status elements. It achieved astonishing results, removing the mould completely, filling in scratches and lubricating the film surface to the point at which it will go through our telecine (a CCD-adapted Fumeo mech) without any problems whatsoever. The quality of the Beta SP transfers I've done this way is also extremely high.

However, I am very reluctant to treat an original element, in case this has implications either for long-term preservation or future duplication. This issue was discussed on the AMIA list about a year ago, and a number of people reported difficulties in ultrasonic cleaning after other cleaning solutions (including FG) were used.

So I have the following question for Brad, or anyone else who can answer it: will ultrasonic cleaning completely remove all trace of the FG from the film surface? Are there any known adverse reactions between the FG and the cleaning solution (either 1,1,1 or perc)? And if not, can an FG-treated element be contact printed without damaging either it or the printer?

Doing this goes against all the preservation guidelines in the book, and is not recommended by any of the main professional bodies in the field (e.g. AMIA, FIAF, FIAT, Image Permanence Institute). However, this broadcaster would really like to use the film, we would make a bit of money from it and it would be great to have it shown. Answers on a postcard please...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-06-2002, 07:59 AM:

There are no adverse reactions to the cleaner used in the ultrasonic cleaners that I have been informed about (but that doesn't guarantee that what you are using won't). I have tried re-cleaning films with other common cleaners such as VitaFilm and Renovex, etc after cleaning with FG with no problems if that is of any help.

As for contact printing, I really couldn't tell you. I don't think anyone has done it. Just to be safe since you are speaking of a one-of-a-kind original element, I would obviously recommend you play with some expendable film to be sure.

FilmGuard will evaporate on it's own 6-12 months after application.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-06-2002, 08:31 AM:

It's likely that ultrasonic cleaning with tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) would likely remove any film treatment like Film-Guard, but the non-volatile components could build up in the cleaning solvent. The newer HFE or HFC solvents may not have enough "solvent power" to completely remove Film-Guard:
here Film Cleaning Solvents

Contact printing a treated original may transfer non-volatile components to the raw stock, which could have a photographic effect during processing.

------------------
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: here

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-06-2002, 10:04 AM:

Many thanks for this. Sadly we haven't got the time to test first, but I've spoken to our contact at the lab who does most of our b/w duplication work, who is as certain as he can be, short of giving a guarantee, that there shouldn't be a problem. So I risked it and did it, and the result looks great. There's a little bit of emulsion cracking visible in high contrast areas (presumably a combination of base shrinkage and fungal attack on the emulsion), but the focus and stability is remarkably even for such buckled stock.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 11-06-2002, 10:09 AM:

Leo -- so which did you do? Copy the film on a contact printer or telecine it?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-06-2002, 11:13 AM:

Telecined it. We can't do film printing in-house, sadly.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-06-2002, 02:14 PM:

Somewhat tangentially, if there are concerns about FG having longterm effects on original elements (since it seems everyone agrees it has no short-term side effects), the wise choice when treating an original element with FG is to immediately make a protection IP of it.

That way, the protection IP can realize the high-quality of the original element, even if that original element then degrades substantially in the far-future (due to unknown long-term FG effects, or other issues). This is assuming that contact-printing the FG-treated original element does not lead to significant transfer of FG to the IP. I guess you could optically print it to avoid that if you were really concerned...

I guess this is all out of Leo's budget range from a practical perspective...

--jhawk

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-06-2002, 02:57 PM:

Yes, absolutely. We have a very good relationship with a fantastic lab who would have done a wonderful, crisp and sharp dupe from this element using procedures that are sanctioned by film archive professional bodies. But there would have been a cost, both in time and money. On this particular project, we couldn't afford that cost on either count.

So I really wanted to get a handle on how big the element of risk was that I was burning my boats, i.e. how likely was I to be compromising my ability to dupe this element using conventional methods later if I treated it with FG now? In particular, I'd overlooked the possibility of FG contaminating the raw stock during contact printing, which John P pointed out, which shows how important it is to ask questions first and act later, and also what an wonderful site this is for asking the questions!

The responses both from this forum and from my lab contact led me to believe that the risk was low enough to justify taking it, so I took it.