Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filmguard and old prints.

This is topic Filmguard and old prints. 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=004471

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-23-2003, 10:05 AM:

Has anyone used Filmguard on very old prints, some of them diacetate from the '30s? Is it safe to use on any type of film base, and is there a British distributer for it? How much does it cost?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-23-2003, 10:54 AM:

I've used it on virtually every type of film base except nitrate, including acetate butyrate and acetate propionate. I've found it to be excellent in reducing the effects of brittleness, lifting off dirt (when applied with a Selvyt cloth) and filling in scratches. It's available from Jack Roe (website) or sales@jack-roe.co.uk. A 900ml bottle costs £34.95. This might seem a lot, but ours has lasted over a year now and we probably treat around 3,000 feet of 16mm per month.

I would, however, avoid coating Dufaycolor and magnetic striped elements. I've never tried Filmguard on Dufaycolor but am cagey about the possibility of it interfering with the refraction levels in the different reseau. As the head makes physical contact with the magnetic oxide, I suspect that Filmguard on an element could come off on the head and interfere with reproduction, and so again I've never attempted it.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 01-23-2003, 10:55 AM:

Steven: I've used it on '30's triacetate (b/w and 'Chrome), as well as dye transfer Tech, LPP, Fuji, Agfa, and the normal b/w stocks on newer films, both triacetate and estar. In addition to cleaning, it's great for relaxing warped prints and hiding base scratches. No problems encountered, except that it can weaken tape splices when used excessively. Sorry, but I don't have any info on UK distribution or price. Brad....?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-23-2003, 11:34 AM:

Interesting. I've used Filmguard every show on my print of Greek Wedding since it came out 7 months ago and it still has the original tape splices (Neumade clear) and they are holding up fine.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-23-2003, 11:40 AM:

I hope you were knocking on wood when you made your post Joe. Otherwise expect every reel join to come apart on you today. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-23-2003, 12:18 PM:

You would have to be applying by hand and applying "excessively" like Jeff said for it to weaken tape splices. I've personally never seen that happen.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 01-23-2003, 01:21 PM:

Brad: From my experience it takes a heavier application to effectively relax a warped or curled print than it does to clean, and clearly that would be defined as "excessive", but it does work. I have found, however, that Neumade tape, the only kind I regularly use, will stretch and "hinge" if it sits for a while with that much Film-Guard. I've got no gripes, though. I'll gladly remake a few splices if it can "rejeuvinate" an otherwise imperfect print.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-23-2003, 02:57 PM:

Yes, I forgot to mention that it can dissolve the adhesive in tape joins. I agree with Jeff, you do need a heavier coating to offset the effects of brittleness and fill in base scratches than would be applied by a media cleaner in a projection film path.

One anally pedantic point: I thought that cellulose triacetate didn't come on the market until 1948. During the '30s it was diacetate, butyrate and from 1937 acetate propionate. In a paper given to the SMPE conference in 1948 (see SMPE Journal vol. 51, no. 4, Oct. 1948, pp. 331-350), Charles R. Fordyce of Eastman Kodak announced that his company had developed the first commercially viable triacetate base.

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-23-2003, 03:07 PM:

Leo,

It is my experience that in order to actually weaken tape splices you really have to get a print dripping wet with FilmGuard, and then store it dripping wet in a can for many weeks <for instance, if you are trying to flatten a warped vinegar print>. [thumbsup]

As for base scratches, it is my understanding that using a Kelmar cleaner is the best, and recommended, method to cover those on screen.

Danny

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-23-2003, 05:24 PM:

Yup, that's right, it's the complete saturation treatment I was referring to.

I work in an archive rather than a cinema, and we don't have a media pad cleaner of the sort normally found in projection film paths. The way I apply Filguard is to spray one or two squirts onto a Selvyt cloth which is then applied the film manually whilst winding. In conservation work we normally replace dried out tape joins on acetate elements with cement joins, and Filmguard has never had any arguments with cement. This stuff is wonderful in lubricating the surface, reducing the effects of shrinkage and brittleness in a projector or telecine film path and filling in base scratches. But you need a pretty thick coating to get the benefit of it, more so than I would guess that a media pad cleaner applies.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 01-24-2003, 12:31 PM:

We've probably beaten this topic to death, but I don't want to leave any misunderstandings. Those of us who frequently work with old prints probably constitute a miniscule proportion of Brad's customer base, and clearly do not use Film-Guard as it was designed to be use. Still, when you work with an archival or repertory setting where a print is not plattered and shown repeatedly, a film cleaner may not be the best answer (and yes, we do use Film-Guard in Kelmar cleaners in the two conventional multiplexes my partners and I own). Like Leo, I use hand application between rewinds, only in my case with Webril Wipes (cotten pads intended for the printing trade). I shoot one or two sprays on a pad, and refold the pad and add a respray roughly twice per 2000' reel. Note that this is for "just arrived, filthy, and probably neglected" old prints, and I will reapply and reverse wind for badly warped prints. If they're just dirty and/or scratched I'll go back a few hours or a day later and "dry" with a fresh pad turning frequently. The result is a print that it initially "slimy" to the touch (NOT dripping), but which dries out to the touch rather quickly. The heavy application can stretch out tape splices, but the alternative of soaking a print in another solution, my prior practice, was guaranteed to remove them. Again, I acknowedge that this is not Brad's re

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 01-24-2003, 06:54 PM:

Ok, I know this has probably been beat to death but here goes anyway.
I just recievd my first bottle of Film Guard and after playing with it I have a question. When applying to a print just how much should be used? Should I see liquid as I clean or should my cleaning pads be just wet enough to touch and not leave a lot of residue? Or put another way, just how much should I apply ?
When I get through cleaning my print I can see where there is residue on the film and should I leave it on there?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2003, 10:51 PM:

It is a very slow drying cleaner. It will take 6 months to a year for it to fully evaporate. That's part of the design, so that you can achieve wet gate type projection (scratch fill in and such), and to do so the print must be wet. Leave it on.

It takes approximately 1 ounce to clean a feature length 35mm movie.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-25-2003, 01:05 AM:

Sam-- I've just started using FilmGuard as well. At first, it seems tricky but after you have been using it for a couple weeks, you get a "feel" for how much you need to use and how its effects work.

That, and the endless pages of emails I sent to Brad asking him everything under the sun about it. [Wink]

=TMP=

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-25-2003, 04:22 AM:

Brad, Just a few more questions. Would I be able to buy just a couple of bottles, or is it only available by the case? Does it come with instructions? Are there any special precautions that need to be taken when using it by hand at the bench? If I don't do anything stupid, like drink the stuff, is it likely to do any harm, either to me, or to common surfaces that it is likely to come into contact with? You say that only small quantities are needed, and that it is slow drying. Small quantities and low volitility seems to suggest that there shouldn't be too much of a problem with fumes; can I take it that it can be safely used in a room with normal reasonable ventilation, without requiring fume extraction facilities?

I need to order a few things from Jack Roe soon, Leaders, spacing, carbons, etc., I'll get some to try.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-25-2003, 10:11 AM:

Jack Roe has never had any problem with selling it to me in single bottles. Just as long as you don't sniff the stuff I can't see that there's any health and safety issue with fumes. The only health and safety issue I can think of is that, given that Brad's MSDS data sheet states that it contains petroleum distillates, I guess Filmguard would probably make quite an impressive bonfire given the chance. For that reason (and several others) I have not ever tried using Filmguard on nitrate. But I can't see that Filmguard is any more dangerous than other flammable liquids that are routinely kept in the home or workplace, e.g. white spirit. Just don't smoke whilst cleaning films and you'll be fine!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-25-2003, 03:26 PM:

Yes to all of your questions Stephen. Quart bottles is how they are sold. There is a 4 page instruction manual enclosed. No special precautions are needed in a typically ventilated room, just don't drink it.

And FG is less flammable than every other film cleaner and commonly found cleaning item in a typical projection booth.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-26-2003, 10:51 AM:

Film Guard has successfully been applied to nitrate as well so drink up!

I believe Brad has stated that it has no bad effects on striped magnetic film either...in fact, it cuts down on the friction effects of the strips passing over the heads...remember, it isn't the contact with the heads that makes the sound...it is the induction of the charged particles passing over the head that makes the sound...the induction properties are still there. There is probably some measurable loss with the ever so slight spacing from the layer of film-guard but we are on the molecular level here.

Steve

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2003, 02:07 AM:

quote:
I believe Brad has stated that it has no bad effects on striped magnetic film either...in fact, it cuts down on the friction effects of the strips passing over the heads

I can believe that in the case of newer striped stock in a good condition, but would be nervous about shrunken stock or where there is oxide shedding. On 'dry' stock, oxide will part company with the film altogether and usually settle in the area of film path around the scanning drum and head. A good clean after each reel is all that's needed to clear up the mess. But if particles of oxide get suspended in FG, then I can imagine (i) their contaminating the picture area and appearing on the screen as dirt and/or (ii) a sticky goo consisting of FG and oxide building up on the heads.

In my experience treating older elements with FG by hand needs a much thicker coating than would be applied by an automated media pad system to achieve a worthwhile result, which is likely to make that 'ever so slight spacing' a bit more significant.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-30-2003, 03:27 AM:

so about filmguard and splices. i understand that in normal usage splices will not be compromised, but what if
filmguard is hand applied to film ends as a cleaner, say to get off old tape residue. will a subsequent splice then
hold, even if made over the still-wet end of the film? if filmguard will take the old glue off, won't it dissolve the
new glue under the splice? is there a good way to locally un-filmguard the film if necessary, aside from waiting
a year for it to evaporate?

carl

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 01-30-2003, 05:22 AM:

If you simply wipe off the excess after you've cleaned the area, there shouldn't be any problem. The thing that dissolves the adhesive is the distillate in FG, and if you wipe the area dry, it evaporates pretty quickly, leaving a nice surface to which the new tape will adhere very nicely, I've found.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2003, 05:46 AM:

If you're applying FG by hand as a cheap alternative to ultrasonic cleaning, you do need to use it in the sort of quantities that will affect tape joins, in my experience. My preferred solution is to replace tape joins with cement joins and FG the element after repair. But if that isn't possible, then as John notes, you need to wipe all traces of FG from the surfaces on which the tape is to be applied.