Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: That's Not FILMGUARD!

This is topic That's Not FILMGUARD! 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=004860

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-07-2003, 01:44 AM:

My theater(re) ordered some FilmGuard from CPI a while back and we were told it was on back order. No problem. So, I come in to work today and there's a bottle of this other stuff on the workbench. CPI'S brand of Film Cleaner Lubricant and Antistatic.

The label on the back had basically the same directions as FilmGuard, saying there's details with the kit. (only the bottle was there, so I dunno). I opened it, and it smelled like FG, felt like FG, and had all the same charactaristics, except it was CLEAR and came in a 32oz Windex-type bottle.

I was going to test it out to see what it does, but all our prints are currently Film Guarded at the moment right now. [Cool]

Anyone have any experience with this stuff? Should I be afraid, surprised, look for anything strange, etc...?

=TMP=

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2003, 03:47 PM:

I haven't got a bottle in hand yet so I cannot say for sure, but from everything I have found out today it is a knockoff of the product.

For those who do not know, CPI is no longer our distributor for failure on Ron Purtee's end to meet the requirements of the distribution contract. It is my opinion that they have quickly thrown something together so they won't lose customers when orders for FilmGuard come in.

In the meantime, all I can report is that this CPI solution has not been tested. I kept FilmGuard under constant testing for 10 years before releasing it to make sure there were not any problems. According to Ron, CPI has spent 2 weeks. I don't consider that a safe amount of evaluation time to be using such a product on film that theaters do not even own. For those of you who are buying and using the CPI film cleaning product, good luck. I hope your prints don't have an adverse effect to the CPI film cleaner and your company ends up having to pay the studios $2000-3000 a pop for each damaged print. I'm not for sure if that will happen or not, but the odds are very good that is something that could happen. User beware! [Eek!]

If you have received one of these bottles from ordering FilmGuard, I am interested in talking to you. Please email me at the address listed on the contact us page.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-07-2003, 04:05 PM:

Thomas, I would not use it. [thumbsdown]

Even though it smells and feels like Filmguard, it is NOT Filmguard.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-07-2003, 04:34 PM:

Brad, please keep us updated on this. The two companies I've purchased Filmguard through have both used CPI. Sounds like a bunch of local suppliers are going to need redirecting.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-07-2003, 04:57 PM:

Send it back and enclose a note explaining that your order was filled incorrectly. If you order "Filmguard" and they don't carry it, they should say so and send a refund; they should not send their knockoff product without telling the customer. Even if it is just as good (and it probably isn't), it is not what the customer ordered.

That sort of customer service stinks. If I order "Neumade" splicing tape, I don't want to get "Frame to Frame" tape instead. If the requested product is unavailable, it's reasonable to offer the customer a substitute product, but it's terribly wrong to just ship something that the customer didn't order and hope that he doesn't complain.

Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 05-07-2003, 05:41 PM:

I totally agree with Scott on this -- you should send it back! It seems sort of dishonest to me, kind of like those knockoff laundry detergents they sell in the dollar store. At first glance, it looks like it says "Tide", but when you read it you see it says "Tidy"!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-07-2003, 06:13 PM:

The fact that is smells and feels like FilmGuard concerns me greatly. But it doesn't LOOK like it? Interesting. It would be easier to repair the deal with Film-Tech than it would be to come up with your own knock-off product within a couple of weeks. That would make me feel pretty uneasy as a customer.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2003, 06:20 PM:

F.Y.I.

CPI was never removed from the dealer list, only as distributor. They could have continued to sell FG just like any other dealer. As of this last month, if the order is placed through CPI, you are NOT getting FilmGuard, even if that is what you ordered and paid for.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-07-2003, 06:41 PM:

Incidently, is anyone else distributing Film Guard Samples? I had ordered one from CPI ages ago and it never showed up (perhaps this is related).

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2003, 06:43 PM:

Email me your shipping address and I'll send you a sample kit directly.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-07-2003, 09:34 PM:

I quite frankly think that CPI is doing this industry a huge disservice by selling a knockoff. To me it only shows a large lack of caring about their customers and ultimate end users.

Brad, You need to re-label your bottles stating "Genuine Film Guard" Accept no substitute.....or something to that effect.

I personally will discontimue pushing any CPI products to any customers I am in contact with and will discuss with others in the office tommrrow to basically boycott all of CPI's products that we now handle. I would urge other dealers, service techs, and theatre owners to join in and do the same. Everything they sell is also available elsewhere.
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-07-2003, 09:59 PM:

Mark said in part:

quote:
..to basically boycott all of CPI's products that we now handle. I would urge other dealers, service techs, and theatre owners to join in and do the same.

Mark, I agree. Boycott them. [beer]

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 05-07-2003, 10:41 PM:

You probably will not have to boycott them too long because I feel that there is a serious lawsuit coming. If there is any sort of patent on Film-Guard, than this Ron Purtee is in serious trouble [Smile]

. CPI might not be in business too long if any sort of lawsuit is sucessful. I hope CPI does go out of business from this. It is just wrong to try to fool the customer with some shitty knockoff product that has been in the works for a maximun of 2 weeks, while Brad perfected his with testing for 10 years. Obviously Purtee does not care about his customers or the potential booby-traps he is setting for these films and projectionists once they start to show the "results" of his product.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-08-2003, 12:01 AM:

I agree and I certainly would not want to possibly end up being party to a lawsuit by purchasing the stuff.
MArk @ CLACO

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-08-2003, 12:36 AM:

It sounds like CPI tried to pull a "fast one" and I hope it backfires on them to the max. [Mad]

[ 05-08-2003, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-08-2003, 08:46 AM:

Is this the same CPI that's here in Nashville, TN?

I've only been there twice. Once was to order some parts for my XL when Wolk wouldn't sell them to me directly, and the other was inquiring about some equipment.

I've since moved all of my projector and soundhead maintenance and part needs to Hadden Theatre Supply of Louisville, KY, and my concessions stuff is coming out of Tri-State Theatre Supply in Memphis.

Could this knock-off Film-Guard product be the actual "real deal, just rebottled and re-labeled?

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-08-2003, 08:46 AM:

Agreed with everyone above.

This seems to be just one of those down 'n' dirty tactics businesses like to use.

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 05-08-2003, 10:03 AM:

Yes Barry, they are Nashville based. I have had great service from them, I hope this issue will be resolved soon.

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 05-08-2003, 10:54 AM:

That's totally appalling. I just hate these folks who think they can rip off whoever they like and get away with it. Go get em Brad!!! I trust CPI have nothing to do with the supplies of Film Guard reaching the UK?

By the way, I ran a print recently that I'd previously run with FG applied (manually). The previous time the image almost jumped off screen and was near perfect. Now that 3 months has elapsed and the FG evaporated - well, I was absolutely astonished at the difference. Film Guard is even better than I thought it was! Good job I got me a film cleaner last weekend...now I just have to figure out how/where to mount it [Confused]

Barry - this stuff doesn't sound like the real deal since it's described as clear whereas FG has a lovely golden glow like a fine beer.

David

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-08-2003, 11:54 AM:

Barry, the knock-off CPI is trying to peddle is NOT Filmguard.

Trust me.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-08-2003, 01:00 PM:

What is the patent # involved? Could someone work from the disclosure statement and either make a non-infringing product or go ahead and infringe and hope no one notices?

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-08-2003, 01:06 PM:

While we're still on the subject of unfair business practices @ CPI: Did anybody receive sound head oil bottled as projector head oil instead? [Frown]

This occurred about two years ago, and the only defense CPI mustered was that Purtee's son "accidentally" bottled the wrong oil in the wrong containers. Yeah, my ass! [fu]

Purtee.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-08-2003, 01:27 PM:

Steve, the only one who has to notice is me. Regarding the patent, one final bit of rewording in the file is being changed for clarity at the request of the patent office. Otherwise it's a done deal. However it is still under patent protection (pending, hence the notation on the bottles), which means that it would have been impossible for anyone to look up the specifics to see if they were free of the patent. Not that it would matter though, for it is a pioneer patent that covers ALL non and slow evaporating cleaners.

So here is how that translates. If the CPI solution doesn't evaporate quickly from the film, regardless of the chemical composition, it is a clear violation of federal patent protection laws. If it does evaporate quickly, then it can in no way be remotely compared to FilmGuard and CPI would simply be doing their theaters a huge disservice if they are sending it out to customers expecting FilmGuard by deceiving them. Of course the obvious argument here is that even if this was nothing like FilmGuard, the fact that their composition could not have possibly been through proper testing is a disservice enough. Do you want to pay the studios for a bunch of damaged film if those prints decide to melt themselves together or some other damage occurs? Besides, if you want a fast drying film cleaner, why not use something like Renovex that has been around long enough to know there won't be any adverse effects?

I've got a couple of bottles of this stuff on the way. I am interested in a few others that have already been sent out into the field. Email me if you have one. I will make it worth your while.

quote: Barry Floyd
Could this knock-off Film-Guard product be the actual "real deal, just rebottled and re-labeled?

No, this is something else. It is NOT actual FilmGuard.

quote: David Rigby
I trust CPI have nothing to do with the supplies of Film Guard reaching the UK?

That is correct. Jack Roe is still ordering the real thing for their customers.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-08-2003, 02:17 PM:

Speaking of sound head oil.... I've been back in the CPI warehouse behind their 5th Avenue offices, and have seen where the "Genuine Soundhead Oil" comes from. I now buy mine at Walmart too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2003, 03:46 PM:

I once ordered "Neumade" splicing tape and received "CPI" tape, and was told by the dealer that "it's the same thing." Well, it IS NOT the same thing. The CPI stuff is thinner, feels cheap, does not peel off in one piece unless you're lucky.

Buyer beware. I personally have sworn off CPI products.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 05-08-2003, 04:19 PM:

If anything at all, it sounds like CPI is at LEAST doing a "bait and switch" on their customers. Not a way to run a successful business.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-08-2003, 04:27 PM:

What is this? Oil that can be used on Simplex, Century, AND Cinemeccanicas (Cinemeccanias?)? Ummmmm doesn't each machine specify a different weight of oil? Is this MAGIC oil that is suitable for anything? Or is it just Wal*Mart oil?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-08-2003, 04:37 PM:

Oil is oil. I use K-Mart 30W Non-Detergent (API Service SC) in my 2003 Escalade. 50 cents a quart with coupon. Look at all the money I save. I bet it works in projectors too. Don't fall for those scams to sell you "special" oil.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-08-2003, 05:08 PM:

Joe did you read the fine print on the bottle. Its also good on
popcorn. [Smile]

CPI

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-08-2003, 06:42 PM:

David said "Oil is oil".

David, I respectfully disagree. Please look up the specifications of any given oil. Some oils are not suited for some applications. It would be worth the trip to go to a bulk oil dealer and pick up a book and you will clearly see what I am driving at.

For instance, Diesel Engine Lube Oil has a different chemical mix. It is not actually suited for gasoline engines. As I understand it, the rod and main bearing surfaces are different from a Diesel engine and a gasoline engine. Using an oil that is not formulated correctly can lead to premature rod and main bearing failures.

Some lubricating oil will attack rubber, some will not. In many industrial applications you will find that oil used that does not meet the manufacturer's specifications of a given machine will VOID that warranty of that specific machine. You have to use the spec oil made for that machine to keep the warranty intact. It does not matter where you get it....just so it meets or exceeds the equipment manufacturer's specifications. [Wink]

Simplex specs out their oil. So does Lavezzi. So does Cinemaclunka. So does Century. So does Brenkert. So does aircraft turbine engines. Use the wrong look-alike oil, and you can and probably will ruin the engine.

Even back in the days of steam locomotives, they had two types of oil. One was formulated to interact with steam, and it was used to keep the cylinders properly lubricated. If used as a general purpose lube oil, it is worthless! I could go on and on about oil. But I won't.

Chemical oil analysis, contrary to popular belief, is not absolutey gospel.

Everyone knows what a vise-grip pliers is. Vise grip is actually a trade mark. You can buy many exact look-alikes, but if it does not contain the "Vise-Grip" patented trade mark, you have a handful of junk in a matter of weeks under normal use.

Filmguard is just like that. A knock-off of the product is like a disaster waiting for a place to happen.

Rant mode off.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-08-2003, 06:50 PM:

Paul, I was just pulling your chain. [evil]

Oil is not all the same (and I wouldn't even use that K-Mart oil in my 1977 2.5HP Tecumseh lawnmower engine [Wink]

). I have no doubt that there is no substitute for Filmguard either. (For the record, I use Mobil 1 Synthetic in my Pathfinder.)

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-08-2003, 08:41 PM:

Cool. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-08-2003, 09:29 PM:

"Did anybody receive sound head oil bottled as projector head oil instead? This occurred about two years ago, and the only defense CPI mustered was that Purtee's son "accidentally" bottled the wrong oil in the wrong containers. Yeah, my ass! Purtee."
________________________________________________________________
When I worked for GTS I ran into this problem and it was the same in bottle that Joe pictured. In my case a customer that bought it from us went through several sets of Simplex X-L fibre intermittent gears before I was there and I found the oil was the wrong weight. It was so heavy that the oil pump even had difficulty pumping it up to the top....
I wonder how much trouble this stuff ultimatyely did cause?????
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-08-2003, 09:31 PM:

Using non-detergent in a modern engine is not a great idea. It'll probably cause no problems for quite a few miles, but the manufacturer has specified multigrade detergent oil for a reason.
At the least, it creates a time bomb for the future. After running on non-detergent oil for a long enough time, quite a bit of crap is deposited inside the engine as a tar-like coating (that's what detergent oil is made to avoid). If detergent oil is then used the crap gets dislodged in clumps and globs - generally plugging the smaller passages such as main bearing oil feed channels. The engine bearings are soon destroyed. I know this from personal experience... I think I drove about a mile before spinning one of the mains.
As far as Simplex oil is concerned, if you want to know what it "really" is, ask Ballantyne for the MSDS. That shows the original manufacturer and type number.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-08-2003, 09:37 PM:

I used to deal with Ron, back when he was Marble... but I haven't talked with him since then.

Seems curious that anyone would take this kind of risk on a product that is so often the topic of discussion that it has it's very own board!. That is... unless a distributor of such a product could actually be unaware of Film-Tech! [Confused]

Is that even possible?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-08-2003, 09:45 PM:

Jack, I might get flamed in this, but my opinion is that Mr. "X" IS a "Marble." Maybe even a full bag of them. Nothing like a "full bag" of marbles when none of them are "shooters." [Big Grin]

I have to admit I lost all my respect for CPI. It saddens me to say that. But they appear to be attempting to screw over a friend of mine.

I have the same feeling with CPI as I did with MTS. I am sorry, but I wish things would just "never happen", but when the almighty buck is involved, it is bound to happen.

However, when I look at friends like Josh, Brad, Phil, Sam, Gerard, Bob, Jack, Don, John, Gordon, Pat, Mark, Mike, "TJ", and many others in our industry that are members of Film-Tech, it gives me great peace of mind.

If I left your name off, please don't feel offended. There are just too many names to list. [Smile]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-08-2003, 10:16 PM:

No reason for flaming that I can see. I think you're right on.

It seems to me that there are a number of companies that serve this industry that are small enough to have personal contact with most, if not all of their distributors. To have a distributor screw you like that is pretty ballsie.

Take Component Engineering. They have their stuff everywhere, yet they operate out of a modest facility in Ballard. You wouldn't think so to look at their image, but you can walk right in the door and deal directly with pretty much the whole company. I haven't been there more than a couple of times, but my impression is that they'd do pretty much anything reasonably possible to keep you up and running. Can't imagine getting very close to an outfit like that, then giving them the shaft without expecting a pretty bad rep to get around fast.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-08-2003, 10:25 PM:

quote:
Seems curious that anyone would take this kind of risk on a product that is so often the topic of discussion that it has it's very own board!. That is... unless a distributor of such a product could actually be unaware of Film-Tech!

Actually, this website and forum came along before FilmGuard was introduced, and it was not created as a means to push an upcoming product. When I started this site, I had plenty of spare time on my hands and it started off as nothing more than a webpage of projection booth pictures. Other things like the forum, manual downloads, tips pages and such came along as the months passed, but all were before FilmGuard.

Yes, Ron and everyone at CPI is well aware of this website and forum.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-09-2003, 03:23 PM:

I will be in need of a bottle or two of FilmGuard soon. My vender used to get it from CPI. Since I will no longer accept anything that comes from CPI, I need to know where to get it from.

Any suggestions?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-09-2003, 03:27 PM:

Dave Macaulay, I was kidding about the non-detergent oil. Not sure if you got that or not. [Wink]

OTOH, if you're just giving people a general heads-up about the evils of using non-detergent oil in modern engines, disregard this. [beer]

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-09-2003, 04:08 PM:

David - I was mostly having painful memories of paying for that engine rebuild [Smile]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-09-2003, 04:13 PM:

About 40 years ago, I worked part-time at a gas station. The owner of the station told me of a "hotplate" test on different oils. He told me about 4 brands. Texaco, Mobil, Shell, and Pennzoil.

The test was a simple test where oil was poured on a hotplate to see how well it would stand up. Texaco's Havoline brand and Mobil's passed the test with flying colors. Shell and Pennzoil didn't do that great. They deteriorated very quickly, and both had a very high ash content after the oil broke down.

To me, this made sense. I have heard many engine overhaul facilities bitching about excessive sludge build up in high milage engines. The extremely dirty engine blocks were using either Shell or Pennzoil or some cheap knock-off brand. The engines that used Texaco or Mobil were very clean by comparison.

I rebuilt a 272-CID Ford engine many years ago, and drove that engine for 150,000 miles before I sold the car. I used nothing but Texaco Havoline oil, and that engine was a clean as a whistle. [Wink]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 05-09-2003, 05:14 PM:

Paul! How could you forget about the worlds crappiest sludge producing oil "QUAKER STATE" ? [puke]

.
That was the worst thing you do to your car other than running it without water. [thumbsdown]

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled program [dlp]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-10-2003, 02:40 PM:

AHHH!!! Quaker State. If you ever tear down an engine run with Quaker State you'll see that it goes beyond sludge, it's more like sludge and goo. [puke]

You'd probably be better off running Maple Syrup instead.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-10-2003, 05:44 PM:

My dad runs Quaker State in his 1990 Grand Prix without any problems. That car had well over 150,000 miles on the odometer the last time I saw it. He tells people the Grand Prix is his "test car". He loves the looks he gets, such as [Eek!]

and

. I just give him a [fu]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-10-2003, 06:20 PM:

O.K. gang....

Now for engine oils....

Regardless of what brand of engine oil you use...the following is recommended....

Personally, I change my engine oil once a month....as soon as it starts to change color. And I do it myself for a whopping cost of $10.00 or so....I recycle the oil at my local auto parts store.

So, why am I so nutty? Keeping your engine this clean will make it last a hell of a lot longer! And chances are that you probably will not have to bore the cylinders come overhaul time...the walls may just need a honing.

Another old trick is on new engines...or newly remanufactured engines...to pour some alcohol down the intake every few weeks. This will really help to clean up carbon deposites of the piston heads and valve seats...but do not do this to older engines! You may take a chance of busting off a large chunck of carbon deposite...which could get hung up in a valve....causing a major aw shit!

On older engines designed for leaded fuels...when it comes time for overhaul...make sure that hardened valve seats...compatable with unleaded fuels are used!

If possible, stay away from those 10 minute quick lube places...especially with older cars!: On one ocassion, when I was really limited on time, I stopped at one. The young, incompetitent punk on duty was going to top off my tranny fluid. I asked him to be sure and use type FA...(a mid 1960's C-4 Automatic) He insisted that there was no such thing. Then we got into a arguement about the correct oil filter for a mid 1960's Ford 289 which takes a type FL-1A filter. Again this punk denied that such a beast exists, and was going to try and jury rig something....but not before I stopped him from even touching my car! This place was one of the national chains that advertise soo much! A quick trip to my neighborhood auto parts store yeilded my needs...all of which were(and continue to be) standard stocked items.

Another thing...people love to "gun" their engines first thing in the morning...after the engine has ben sitting. This is one of the worst things that you could possibly do...especially when it is cold outside! Remember that the engine has been sitting...oil has drained to the bottom of the engine....common sense tells the rest!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-10-2003, 06:30 PM:

Will,
Ya could use Mobil 1 like several of us here at Film-Tech do and get away with an oil change every 7500 miles, possibly more. My last change of Mobil One is now approaching that much milage and it still has yet to turn color. Gun my engine....surely not...I don't even have a firearms owners card, and with Mobil One the engine oils up ALOT faster than it will with regular oil which actually gets like molasses in only mildly cold weather. Heck you can take a quart of Mobil One and pour it right in at temperatures of up to 100 below 0. Try that one with a regular quart of oil!

Using Mobil One is a lot less work and your engine will probably not ever need an overhaul....at least before the body rusts away to oblivion. So in the long run you can go play more golf and never have to worry about that expensive engine overhaul eating into your golfing money.
Mark

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-10-2003, 09:47 PM:

Pennzoil, Kendall and Quaker State are (supposed to be) made from Pennsylvania Grade crude oil. Pennsylvania Crude has a very high parafin content but a very low sulfur content.

The theory is that the parafin acts as a coating on the surfaces of the engine... sorta' the way Film Guard does. The drawback is that the oil does break down quicker. When using Pennsylvania-based oils you MUST change your oil regularly, like clockwork!

I have used Pennzoil in every car I have had. Never had a problem because of the oil. My Dodge Neon ran for over 120,000 miles on a steady diet of Pennzoil changed every 2,500 - 3,000 miles. Never even had a problem with the engine that kept it in the shop more than one day. The only reason I sold it is because the spedometer stopped working and the exhaust system rusted out all at the same time I needed new tires. This was all right about a month before the inspection sticker was to run out. I wouldn't be able to get the car inspected again unless I spent boucoup bux on repairs. I thought it better to trade the car in and get a new one I wouldn't have to dump a lot of money into repairing.

Another theory is that you should never use Pennsylvania-based oils in engines that have had other kinds of oil. The way that I have heard it, some of the compounds in the other oils will react with the parafin and turn to sludge. Maybe this is the reason people seem to think Pennzoil sludges up your engine?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 09:58 PM:

Daryl, you're absolutely right about Quaker State Oil! It is crap! I agree with Mark about Mobile One.

Paul is also correct about Havoline.... used it for years and loved it.

Now I really like K-Y or "Elbow Grease"...but that's a different subject! [evil]

>>> Phil

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 05-10-2003, 10:16 PM:

Aaron,
Remember a few years back when quaker State reformulated? There was a reason for that, the reason is that the old stuff was parafin based. Imagine melting a candle inside your engine, thats about the equivalent of what QS did.
"That is all, breckingridge" [dlp]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-11-2003, 02:06 AM:

Randy said:

quote:
Pennzoil, Kendall and Quaker State are (supposed to be) made from Pennsylvania Grade crude oil. Pennsylvania Crude has a very high parafin content but a very low sulfur content.

Very true. But they sure missed the boat on making lube oil out of it. [bs]

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-11-2003, 04:04 PM:

Since this topic has gone to oil:

I use Valvoline Dura-Blend in all of my cars and truck now. I switched from Castrol after my uncle, who was a Havoline man for 50 years convinced me. I have noticed that all of my engines seem to idle just a tad faster than they did before.

I've always changed my oil when I start seeing darkness on the dipstick.

I actually used K-Y to make a door stop squeaking when I sold the car! I found the tube in the trunk, and the buyer was on his way over.

The Elbow Grease stays in the house. [Smile]

Today, 5/11/03, I have FINALLY used up my bottle of FilmGuard that you all used to see in my photo. I'll get more when I get a job again.

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 05-11-2003, 09:58 PM:

When I first read this post on May 7th it intrigued me because it mentioned a company I was familiar with. I have known Ron Purtee for approximetly 5 years, maybe even longer because I met Ron when he was with MARBLE.
It was assumed that CPI was making it's own version of a "film-cleaner" and sending it out in place of FILM-GUARD. Isn't CPI a company that provides items to the Theatre industry and to equipment dealers? Aren't companys suppose to develop new products for their customers? Are we to just assume that they sent this out as FILM-GUARD without proof of it?
The next post from Brad also assumes that CPI is making a knock-off of his product. Are we to only promote FILM-GUARD and disregard any other film cleaner available? Shouldn't BOTH film cleaners be tested before they are to be assumed a knock-off or copyright infridgement? Shouldn't BOTH sides of the story be heard BEFORE we start the name calling and boycotting of certain companys? I would hate to run a company that supplies items to you and to be boycotted and be called unneccsary names because you dont like the items I sell.
And finally, it amuses me that a subject about film cleaners and copyright infridgement and rip-offs and name calling ends up in a discussion about motor oils...Just amazing!

Awaiting the names I will be called...

Paul Goulet

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-11-2003, 10:30 PM:

Paul,

The actual story started with something to the effect of "we ordred one thing (film-guard) and we received an alternative cleaner. I don't think that is in dispute. When one orders something by brand name, they don't expect generic. That is the issue I see being brought up.

Boycotting a company that sends a product that a customer/dealer doesn't order is an acceptable means of showing ones displeasure with a business practice.

I've read nothing in the thread that states that the product was labeled as Film-Guard just that it was subbed without customer approval.

It is perfectly fine for a distributor to state they no longer carry a certain product and now carries an alternative. It is not ok to substitute a product without prior approval.

Next comes the lawsuit part...what I read was that if the product is a knock-off, then a lawsuit would be pending since Film-Guard is a product with a patent application pending and is hence protected providing the patent is eventually granted. Again, what I read was that if it is a knock-off, then a lawsuit to protect one's invention will be filed...certainly an acceptable practice.

Lastly, threads do indeed wander about...all threads though the moderators may wish to minimize that. Moving from a filmcleaner to lubricants is not too far a stretch.

I have not personally had any problem with CPI and have used/sold many of their products. Then again, we sell genuine Film-Guard too and now obtain that directed from Film-Tech so I have not had the problem that started this thread.

Steve

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-12-2003, 08:15 AM:

I'm reading this thread as:

1) Somebody ordered Film Guard and got soemthing else instead but nobody told them about the substitution.

2) The "stuff in question" seems just like Film Guard.

3) Film Guard is under Provisional Patent.

4) IF "Substance X" has infringed on that patent (appearently so) there will be a lawsuit.

5) THEN... the topic started wandering as many threads on this board do. Most people on this board accept that and sometimes even LIKE it when threads wander. However, in this case, I took it to mean that people were engaging in "side-talk" just to keep the thread alive while they wait for more news on the subject.

*************

Now, I haven't got a problem with somebody figuring out a way to take some product/device/invention and make it "better-faster-cheaper". That's the American Way. If the guys at CPI have figured out a way to make Film Guard "better-faster-cheaper" without infringing on a patent, more power to them. However, at this stage of the game, I don't see how ANYBODY could have improved upon Film Guard without infringing the patent.

Even if they took some Film Guard and put it through a mass spectrometer it would STILL take time to work out the "recipe". It's not enough to simply know what's IN Film Guard you need to know what ORDER the ingredients were added and if there were any special steps like heating, stirring, settling, etc. Stuff like that just CAN'T be figured out overnight!

If somebody from CPI could satisfactorily explain why their cleaner is different from Film Guard or explain why it's "better-faster-cheaper" than Film Guard, I (and a lot of other people) won't be so pissed off. However, at this point, we have found no evidence that this is the case. It looks like a direct rip-off of Film Guard. People who are paying good money for a product deserve to get what they pay for and not have to worry about getting "counterfeit merchandise".

At this point (without any more information) it certainly LOOKS like we have counterfeit merchandise on our hands.

People have a RIGHT to be pissed off in this situation.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-12-2003, 08:26 AM:

If, as Brad has said, he has the entire "stays wet" thing locked up then it doesn't even matter what the knockoff is made of; if it stays wet then it's infringing with the only wiggle room being how that is defined versus what the knockoff actually does. And of course whether, if it actually went to court, the respondent could find some way to invalidate the part of the claim that is being infringed upon.

Oh wait...this thread is about engine lube. I've always used Quaker State in my Jeep Grand Cherokee (cast iron I-6). I'm well past 100K; I hope it's not full of sludge.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2003, 11:34 AM:

Apparently CPI has done the "ship out something different than what's ordered" before. My dealer is BrightStar, who gets some of their supplies from CPI. Many many months ago I ordered some Christie BevanPoos to help out with the ORC platters we had then. Instead we got the round CPI pucks (plastic). I didn't say anything about it at the time, but I thought it was odd. BrightStar did once send me Filcro media pads when I ordered Film-Tech pads, but they quickly and politely fixed the situation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-12-2003, 02:45 PM:

I would have to say that any dealer that substitutes something unbeknownst to his customer is not too Bright!! This is something I've never done myself, and something we never do at CLACO without first clearing it with our customers.

In any event many, of the Brighter dealers i know out there have selected what products to reccomend and sell to their customers based on years from experience garnered from these different products. CPI and certianly dealers like Bright Star that pull this sort of thing ought to be run out of town.....permanently.
Mark

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-12-2003, 03:40 PM:

20 years ago, it made me angry when I would order a tube of Century Gear Lube and a tube of Lubri-plate shows up un the doorstep. Fire gets in my eyes when I specify 9v 4A prefocused GE exciter lamps and Marble's cheap brand shows up at the theatre. I'm ready to take a hammer to the dealership that sends be a jug of 10W40 motor oil when I ordered Simplex oil. There was an instance where RCA soundhead oil was ordered at a theatre, and guess what showed up? How about guessing EP-90 manual transmission gear oil...that's exactly what showed up. [Mad]

When I order someting, I specify what brand I want. If that brand I want is not available for one reason or another, I want to know before a substitute is delivered. If I order a Lavezzi VKF sprocket, that is EXACTLY what I want. If I don't get that sprocket I ordered, the dealership better make an appointment with his/her protologist to have that sprocket removed from his/her rear end! If I order a bottle of FilmGuard, I better get a bottle of FilmGuard and nothing else! It is a proven product.

Mark said:

quote:
certianly dealers like <snip> that pull this sort of thing ought to be run out of town.....permanently.

Mark, I certainly agree. And one by one, they will eventually get run out of town. [beer]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-12-2003, 05:38 PM:

Sounds like some new advertising is called for:

Only Film-Guard is Film-Guard! Ask for it by name.
If your dealer sends you something else return it unopened.
At their expense!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-18-2003, 11:28 PM:

Here are some results from a quick first impression evaluation of the new CPI ripoff to FilmGuard. Before anyone asks, this was a Deluxe print on Kodak 2383 stock.

The lube is definitely not suitable for this application. The picture above as well as the next one show how goopy and thick it is. The cleaner was sprayed on a cloth and wiped on.

The following pictures show how the film looks after the film has been coated, then wiped clean.

The remaining film wasn't slick and lubricated, but had a tacky feel, similar to one of those little cups of pink tacky goo that office personnel smudge their fingers in to better be able to sift through paperwork. The coating would not wipe off and did not apply itself well. As anyone who has used FilmGuard knows, FG can be easily wiped off with a dry cloth without leaving a residue if so desired.

This picture is another angle of the above.

While the emulsion did not appear to suffer any immediate damage, the base was certainly not happy with this. Running through a projector, the added tackiness made the film chatter and caused some picture unsteadiness. Such a coating will also cause premature sprocket wear. This is "film done wrong".

Since this mixture is something that CPI concocted on the fly a few weeks ago, it has not had any amount of testing via time which is where an even bigger concern comes into play for anyone using this on their prints. I am now starting some time experiments. So far, this looks like bad news to film. My major beef with this is that customers of CPI are being shipped this stuff when they are ordering FilmGuard, which reflects poorly on the real thing by unknowing users. (Check their website www.cinprod.com as they are still advertising it too. Just click on "products".) I want to make it very clear that this is NOT FilmGuard. Besides being what appears to be a cleaner that is damaging to the film, it also does blatantly violate the patent as it does not evaporate with any speed.

With this there is no more doubt. CPI has broken federal laws in manufacturing and selling this product as well as causing forseeable film damage in the field. I have now lost all respect for Ron Purtee, Randy Baush and the crew at CPI, for besides them misleading their customers and shipping out this bad substitute mixture, they are also directly trying to copy a proven product that has governmental patent protection. This is no less of an offense than someone violating a copyright by bootlegging a movie. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it and CPI is directly guilty without further question. Shame on you Ron Purtee and shame on anyone supporting this company's illegal activities.

If your dealer does not carry FilmGuard, there are certainly plenty of other options for film cleaner/lubricants out there. FG is by all means not the only choice, just don't say I didn't warn you about this one!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-19-2003, 02:01 AM:

Very good report and analysis, Brad. I think CPI got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar once to often.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2003, 09:31 AM:

Geez, I just checked out the CPI web site and couldn't find it there. They still have FilmGuard on there though. Also yall click on the people button and it still says Dave is there too, plus they still have my old e-mail address at GTS up as ell. Now we all know these not to be true..... Looks like Ron needs to do a bit of housecleaning on the ole site....
Brad, Keep us informed as to the progress of the lawsuit(s).

Mark

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-19-2003, 01:35 PM:

Brad -- Perhaps we could see a formal review of this stuff in the Reviews section after you have all of the other tests completed?

=TMP=

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-19-2003, 04:51 PM:

I'm beginning to think that maybe we'd better chill-out on this subject. If there is litigation, we dont want to say anything that could mess up the proceedings.

My $.02...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2003, 05:17 PM:

No need to Bruce. Everything I have posted is factual and everything else is merely comments and opinions on the subject. People have a right to know and they have a right to speak.

I can also add at this point that I have had a container with a certain amount of this stuff open to the air and after 24 hours there has been no evaporation. Even if ALL of the chemicals were different, this is still a blatant violation of the patent.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-20-2003, 01:46 PM:

Brad, you might want to double-check with your patent lawyer. As I understand it, prior to your patent application being published (or your patent being granted), you are not actually entitled to any patent protections. Once your patent is granted (or the application published), they would need to stop infringing. I don't see a published application for your patent.

So while CPI's practice certainly appears ill-advised from a customer service perspective, as well as rude, I do not think they are violating federal patent protections.

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-20-2003, 04:02 PM:

John, that was actually the first thing discussed before the process even started. YES, it is covered. So long as "patent pending" is clearly stamped on the product, it is a would-be-criminal's responsibility to steer clear of what is covered. All Ron had to do was ask and I would have gladly told him, just like I went over the basics of the coverage here.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-20-2003, 05:49 PM:

Well, how does that actually work? If someone has an idea and decides to market it they can search the patent database to make sure they aren't stepping on any toes. But when there is nothing published? In this case of course they are aware of your product as they sold it and by all accounts this is a deliberate attempt to copy it. But in general, for someone who never heard of the product whose patent is only pending, how do they avoid infringing? It would seem like they cannot.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-21-2003, 08:08 AM:

An issued patent:

Extremely long link

A patent application:

(URL is way too long for these forums. Until John provides a shorter one it will not be shown here.)

[ 05-21-2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-29-2006, 01:20 AM:

It has been 1103 days since the last post.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-29-2006, 01:20 AM:

I remember reading this thread awhile back and was wondering if there had ever been an update as far as any litigation or what the longer term testing found out? Thanks.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 05-30-2006, 08:40 AM:

Yes inquiring minds want to know. [Wink]

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 06-07-2006, 04:17 PM:

I notice that a certain company is still selling Film Guard and they are displaying the FilmGuard logo. Is this the real stuff or a knock-off?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-07-2006, 04:22 PM:

Cinema Products International is not distributing real FilmGuard. It is a knockoff product that causes film damage in the long run. Anyone buying from them is getting scammed in more way than one. They are also supporting well known crooks in this industry.

Fact, not opinion.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-07-2006, 04:49 PM:

Wow. At the very least you should be able to get an injunction that stops them from calling their product "Filmguard." Their info sheet is a direct copy of your info.

Whether or not they are violating your patent, they certainly can't market it as the same product.

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 06-07-2006, 06:15 PM:

Also -- they are using your logo. You should be able to get an injunction to stop them. They are deliberately trying to deceive people. This is very wrong.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-19-2009, 07:55 PM:

It has been 1016 days since the last post.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-19-2009, 07:55 PM:

Rhu-ro, Rastro.....

Bumping this up because I have two bottles of "Filmguard" that I bought from Theatre Service and Supply some time ago ( a few years back) and I noticed much to my dismay the boxes the kit came in have CPI logos...

The product is a semi-dark amber and has a kind of "sweet" smell to it...but now I'm wondering if it's the real thing?

Brad, any chance you could send a small sample of the real Filmguard for me to check out in comparison? And if you wish I can send one of the bottles to you for comparison.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-19-2009, 09:09 PM:

That is the real stuff. CPI's knockoff was something they concocted in less than 2 week's time and was a clear sticky liquid.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-19-2009, 09:45 PM:

Whew, thanks Brad. [Smile]

It does seem to work well, but the CPI thing got me a bit worried.. [Smile]

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-27-2009, 09:43 AM:

Quick question.
I just received a new bottle of Film-Guard (brand new still sealed in the official Film-Tech Box) and after I had let it sit on the make-up table overnight, I noticed a brown sediment-like substance had settled to the bottom of the bottle. I shook the bottle for a couple of seconds and it disspeared, but later when I came back to it, the sediment had come back.

Any ideas what this would be and will it affect my prints?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-27-2009, 12:57 PM:

Depending on how long the bottle was in storage before you got it generally affects that. So long as you shake it up before use, there are no concerns.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 04-14-2009, 02:39 PM:

What's the big deal with FilmGuard, anyway? Isn't it just fingernail polish?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-14-2009, 04:17 PM:

No, it is motor oil. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-14-2009, 04:32 PM:

Julie,
I don't know how far you have your head up your ass to ask a question like that, but I certainly think Joe was being too kind to you for such a dumbass question/statement.

Do some research on this site and Google before you make another asinine post.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-14-2009, 05:36 PM:

LOL don't hold back Phil, tell us how you really feel. [Big Grin]

I do agree though, I was wondering WTF when I read that post....what does Film ANYTHING have to do with fingernail polish? [Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2009, 05:42 PM:

quote: Julie Lucero
What's the big deal with FilmGuard, anyway? Isn't it just fingernail polish?

No, you're thinking of "Liquid Nails" probably.

FilmGuard is not only a film lubricant, but a tasty breakfast drink as well. [Big Grin]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-14-2009, 05:45 PM:

FilmGuard is a good cure for hangovers too!
Just mix a few drops with a glass of orange juice on the morning after your latest drinking binge [beer]

and chug it right down!

It'll do wonders! [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-14-2009, 06:27 PM:

quote:
Just mix a few drops with a glass of orange juice on the morning after your latest drinking binge and chug it right down! It'll do wonders!

Interestingly, Randy's hangover cure also works by substituting Film Guard with fingernail polish...

Hmmmm...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-14-2009, 06:42 PM:

Yes, but only a few drops. Do not over apply! Otherwise you'll get streaks in your vision.

Don't you read the instructions? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-14-2009, 07:50 PM:

How can you read instructions when the room won't stop spinning?

Stupid room!

[bruce]

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 04-15-2009, 07:26 AM:

It sounds to me like Filmguard is
Medicinal compound

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-15-2009, 04:13 PM:

See? They just don't make good television like that anymore.

[puke]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-15-2009, 05:05 PM:

Well, ever since they started making FilmGuard out of nail polish, everything has gone down hill! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-15-2009, 05:13 PM:

Hmmmm, there's a link there somewhere...Lily the Pink and nail polish. Is that the Film Guard colour of choice?

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 04-16-2009, 10:20 AM:

quote: John Wilson
See? They just don't make good television like that anymore

HMMM yes thank the gods

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 04-16-2009, 02:42 PM:

In the US we had "Flipper".

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-16-2009, 08:00 PM:

Hey, Skipper and Flippy were both quality shows...the fact that they had the same scripts may have had something to do with it.

Skippy

Skippy had it all over Flipper though for me...the Skippy programme had a helicopter. [Razz]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-16-2009, 09:35 PM:

But Flipper had an airboat! [Big Grin]

Much cooler than any old helicopter!

[Cool]

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 04-17-2009, 02:11 AM:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh airboats.....

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 04-21-2009, 01:01 PM:

People around my theatre used to swear that I drank the film guard. Mainly because I usually smelled of the stuff, and would go through it alot. I'm sure it'd give you some sort of buzz or something, but nor for me. Though I do take joy in finding alternative uses for it. Like adhesive remover. Good stuff, esp since it's both a cleaner and a lube. Some other stuff I used to use on my trap and gate bands at a previous job only was a lube evidently. I'd always have to clean them prior.

Maybe FG needs a cherry flavor? [thumbsup]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-21-2009, 02:45 PM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
Some other stuff I used to use on my trap and gate bands at a previous job only was a lube evidently.

Would that have been XeKote? Made by Xetron?

It worked great as a trap band lube but sucked when used with a media cleaner.

Cherry FilmGuard? I'd buy it!! [thumbsup]