Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: WTF is VITAFILM?

This is topic WTF is VITAFILM? 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=004700

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-23-2003, 08:39 PM:

I read with great interest the so-called "claims" pictured below from the website http://stewartmps.com.

As a long-time film collector, I have turned down many films that suffered from the "vinegar syndrome" since I was afraid it would contaminate my collection.

I have heard all the "advice" about treatments and "sieves" to arrest and/or prevent the degrading of film, but this ad seems to be a flagrant example of misinformation.

Is there any proof that this VITAFILM prevents or repairs or stops films that have turned vinegar as claimed? Does anything except proper care and storage prevent deterioration?

Also, I thought that VITAFILM was banned because of environmental and health concerns of it's chemical make-up. Is this a new formula or the "original" as claimed?

Thanks in advance for all information.

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-23-2003, 11:14 PM:

Phil,
Its a can of nasty chemials thats guaranteed to get you higher than a kite in no tme flat. Only use it outdoors or with hurricane force ventilation systems. Do you have sinus trouble? This'll help you! It actually does have its uses for cleaning film, but Film Guard works far better and it takes a tanker truck of Film Guard to get you high. Of course John Pytlak will tell you there IS NO CURE for vinegar syndrome, it can only be delayed a bit.....like Kodak wouldn't already have some miracle chemical available called Vita-dak or something to that extent if it were really possible.......
Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-24-2003, 12:07 AM:

Mark:
I am not interested in getting "high".... I haven't had any sinus problems since I left Michigan. [Big Grin]

I am very familiar with FilmGuard and swear by it. I'm interested in the claims and the chemical compositiom of VitaFilm. Is it "safe" for humans and the enviornment? Does it do what it claims?

I'm "waiting" to see what John has to say! [Smile]

>>> phil

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-24-2003, 01:15 AM:

You're right.....you wanted to know WTF is was...Sorry, I told you what it does, and I thought you might be interested in the effect that it can have on a person. Next time I'll just let you find that out on your own!!
Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-24-2003, 01:47 AM:

Mark: [Smile]

>>> Phil

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 03-24-2003, 03:27 AM:

Phil, trek over to the 35mm or 16mm collector forums, this has been discussed on there.

One known side effect of this stuff is that it can cause the dyes to smear and run on some IB Tech films! yikes! [puke]

Danny

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-24-2003, 08:20 AM:

I used the old Vitafilm for 25 years.

I had a HUGE collection of 16mm, and lots of old IB prints that were bad for chattering in the gate when projected dry. I always wound the films thru pads soaked in Vitafilm before they played. No problems. AND... No smearing colors on the IB's!!

I've always had an exhaust fan running over my editing table. I've never had a problem with the sickly-sweet odor that Vitafilm is known for.

I NEVER applied Vitafilm to anything that has tape splices. NEVER! I know for a fact that when Vitafilm gets on a tape splice it causes the adhesive to turn to mush. The splice simply pulls apart.

ALL of my Vitafilmed prints were totally cement-spliced.

I've not used the product in over 5 years, since I ran out of the last gallon that I had. There is no residual smell from any of the films today. Also, no VS in these.

I've heard this IB smear thing several times, and it is not true.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-24-2003, 02:56 PM:

There are many proprietary film treatments on the market. Comprehensive testing (e.g., long term effects on dye stability, shrinkage, brittleness, curl, vinegar syndrome, etc.) is very expensive, and is the responsibility of the company supplying the film treatment, not Kodak.

Kodak has published information about chemicals that might be suitable for film cleaning. One comprehensive study was the paper "Practical Film Cleaning for Safety and Effectiveness" by Fassett, Kolb and Weigel, published in the September 1958 SMPTE Journal.

New solvents that are suitable today are listed on the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/hse/solvent.jhtml

Proper storage conditions are the most important factor in preventing or slowing the effects of "vinegar syndrome". Reduced temperature and humidity slow the "hydrolysis" reaction of nitrate or triacetate base, and using vented storage containers (or Molecular Sieves in sealed containers) reduces the build-up of acid vapors that accelerate the reaction and cause dye fading:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/hse/mole.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-24-2003, 03:04 PM:

Phil, Just request a safety data sheet on the stuff to see what its about. They have to supply one on request...
Mark

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-24-2003, 03:44 PM:

John, isn't it possible for something to get into the base and actually neutralize the acetic acid in situ rather than simply dealing with the vapors after the fact? Not sure how that would affect long term stability but since the reaction seems to be self catalyzing it would seem logical that killing it at the source would be the best way to prevent further breakdown.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-24-2003, 03:48 PM:

I've poked around trying to locate the MSDS for Vitafilm, can't seem to find it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-24-2003, 03:49 PM:

I am not aware of any neutralizing chemical that might not have other adverse effects. Venting or Molecular Sieves prevent the buildup of the acids.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-24-2003, 07:45 PM:

Has ***anyone*** here from personal experience had VitaFilm "cure" vinegar syndrome as the product claims?

>>> Phil

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-25-2003, 09:18 PM:

No. All it ever did on my stuff was cover the smell for awhile.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-26-2003, 09:57 AM:

quote:
John, isn't it possible for something to get into the base and actually neutralize the acetic acid in situ rather than simply dealing with the vapors after the fact?

It's a long time since I was taught the chemistry of film bases, but I seem to remember that in triacetate, the acetic acid molecules are a key part of the pendant chain ester formation. Neutralise those and you'd also 'neutralise' the flexible, transparent properties of the film base.

quote:
I NEVER applied Vitafilm to anything that has tape splices. NEVER! I know for a fact that when Vitafilm gets on a tape splice it causes the adhesive to turn to mush. The splice simply pulls apart.

Filmguard does exactly the same thing if applied the sort of quantities necessary to lubricate a shrunken print or fill in scratches.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-26-2003, 10:16 AM:

You must be really applying the FG thick Leo. I've put very thick coats on many shrunken and scratched prints to hide deep scratches and get them running smoothly again and never had a splice pull apart or appear to weaken. Are you using the Kelmar cleaner for application? Maybe that has something to do with it. Are you submersing the film? (I don't particularly recommend that.) Any idea what kind of tape was used for the splices?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-26-2003, 10:39 AM:

In my experience, if you splice the film before you treat it so the tape goes onto dry film, there will be no problem with the splices coming apart no matter how much FG you put on. (Well, Almost.)

If, on the other hand, the film already has FG on it, the tape might not even stick. You have to clean the stuff off the film or you risk the splices coming undone.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-27-2003, 06:45 AM:

quote:
Are you using the Kelmar cleaner for application?

No, a Selvyt (lint-free cotton) cloth, with one or two squirts of FG per 300 feet or so (150-200 if the film is in a very bad way), applied with light pressure between thumb and forefinger to both surfaces of the film whilst winding on a vertical bench.

quote:
Are you submersing the film? (I don't particularly recommend that.)

If you mean fully immersing it in a container of FG, no.

quote:
Any idea what kind of tape was used for the splices?

Jack Roe own-brand.

After treating a very dirty or scratched film, I find that you usually have about half an hour before the joins start to become unreliable. If you transfer or project it straightaway, no problem.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-27-2003, 12:01 PM:

Ok, I can see now why you are having issues with splices. That is far more than I have ever needed to put on a film to hide scratches and make it runnable again. You may be working with especially beaten film though.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-27-2003, 03:48 PM:

I applied VF the same way that I apply FG: with my thick pads.

FG has had every opportunity to cause tape splices to die, but has not done this. VF would cause splices to pull apart over just a few days time.

FG goes alot further than VF ever did. I can clean alot more film with FG by the quart than I could Vitafilm by the gallon.

I think that Vitafilm smells better than FilmGuard, but thats where it stops.

I apply all splices before the FG treatment. VF used to affect cement splices when I made them after VF treatments. I got into the habit of putting a dab of film cement on the base of the piece not scraped, and immediately wipe it off. I guess it removed all traces of the VF. These splices are still holding after 25+ years!

Bruce

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-28-2003, 07:45 AM:

quote:
That is far more than I have ever needed to put on a film to hide scratches and make it runnable again. You may be working with especially beaten film though.

The issue is not just hiding scratches; it's also lubricating the film surface in the case of older elements. Cellulose diacetate and propionate elements from the 20s-40s tend to shrink and become extremely brittle. This means that the distance between each perforation reduces slightly, thus increasing the pressure on the side of each perf when a claw or sprocket tooth engages it. Added to that, the brittleness of the stock means that the perforations are less able to withstand the extra pressure and are therefore prone to tearing.

I've found that FG can help a great deal in getting these elements through a telecine transfer, but you do have to use a lot of it. Where possible, I simply remake cement joins with new cement. Where that is not possible I prefer to use tape because a new cement join would mean the loss of two frames. In such cases I've found that the key is to make the transfer as soon as possible after applying the FG, and it's normally OK. We then make a note on the database stating that this element was cleaned with FG on <insert date here>, so that we know to re-examine the joins if it should ever need to be transferred again, or sent to a lab for duping.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-28-2003, 01:34 PM:

Amazingly enough, all of the film that I've handled that was that old wasn't too shrunken, but I can see now more of what you are dealing with. The absolute worst films I've dealt with were prints that got flooded with water from an overnight roof leak onto a platter. Wiping the edges extra generously and then running the film through two media cleaners saturated on the way to the projector always works. That first payout is rough, but it's always made it. Without the treatment, the film was basically glued together.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-31-2003, 08:07 AM:

quote:
Amazingly enough, all of the film that I've handled that was that old wasn't too shrunken...

I find that nitrate tends to stay pretty tough and resilient almost to the very end. Yes, it will shrink and warp slightly, but even so will still have quite a high tensile strength and will run through a mechanism reasonably well until its gets into the last-but-one stage of decomposition, i.e. it starts to get sticky.

The elements I find that think coatings of FG help with are pre-1948 acetates, which were used mainly in 16mm and other small gauges. Here they will gradually shrink and become brittle as time goes on, and I've found that FG applied in sufficient quantities will lubricate both surfaces and so minimise the effects of friction which could otherwise tear them.