Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filmguard on 16mm work prints?

This is topic Filmguard on 16mm work 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=005945

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 03-12-2004, 07:32 PM:

How does filmguard work on 16mm work prints?

I can only apply cleaner by the rewind method, but wanted to try a cleaner that lubricates in order to steady the print during projection (both camera and projector are to manufacturer's tolerances so the problem is not there). I get prints back from the lab and they run with a slight vertical bounce.

Thanks,
Alain

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2004, 04:04 AM:

FG will work fine on 16mm. I would recommend (as I always do) that you simply take a 35mm or 70mm cleaning machine and modify the drive wheel to 16mm width. It provides the best and smoothest possible application.

If you need, I can supply you with 16mm gauge media pads.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-13-2004, 06:49 AM:

I've used FG on a wide range of 16mm viewing copies, ranging from '30s propionate and diacetate elements to '90s polyester ones. I've got nothing but positive things to say about it. It lubricates the passage of shrunk and brittle stock through a projector or telecine, fills in base scratches and lifts off dirt very effectively. Not quite as good as a full scale ultrasonic job: but given the difference in price, the fact that the two treatments are even in the same ballpark is pretty remarkable.

My only caveat with hand application would be my experience that the solvent in FG can dissolve the adhesive in tape joins, thereby causing them to come apart. I would suggest replacing tape joins with cement before application and projection in the case of acetate elements. Obviously you can't do that with polyester and ultrasonic splicers ain't cheap, though.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-13-2004, 02:08 PM:

I definitely recommend it on work prints, both 16 and 35mm (70mm should be OK too [Big Grin]

). Apply FG when the rushes comes straight from the lab, this eliminates shedding and gives them a certain protection when they are run through editing equipment, be it a KEM/Steenbeck or Moviola type.

When we had the first rough cut ready, we would clean the print again and never had any trouble with our splices. A nice effect is that if you have small scratches and cinch marks (it just happens when editing on film), FilmGuard will cover them up and besides cleaning off any debris and dirt, it gives you a kind of "wet gate" projection. Which is great when you want to screen your work print to investors, distributors and other people who are used to a "clean" video image.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-13-2004, 02:18 PM:

How about 8MM film. I have a bunch of home movies that I would like to try and transfer to video but would like to clean them up first. for the best possable image. I know the work would have to be done by hand. Would there be any adverse effect on 8MM film.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2004, 03:06 PM:

Not a problem. Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fuji, etc...it's all fine. It does a nice job of cleaning up 8mm mag tracks as well.

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 03-14-2004, 05:38 PM:

A couple of responses here...

I would have to apply FG with wipes of some kind since I do not have an applicator of any kind (not Ecco D or otherwise). I'm assuming this is an ok method of application?

I'm also a little confused about whether or not FG dissolves splice tape adhesive. Leo says "yes" and Christian says "not a problem".

Can anyone else weigh in on this?

Thanks,
Alain

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-14-2004, 06:00 PM:

Maybe it depends on the brand of splicing tape and how good the splices were made. I don't know about long time effects, but my films cleaned with FG run through a Steenbeck and most have been projected two or three years after treatment without any problem.

FG was applied with a small microfiber cloth (for cleaning delicate surfaces) or leftover cleaning tape from an old Lipsner-Smith film cleaner (soft cotton, I suppose?).

I have seen so many workprints that were spliced quite rough, with the tape not correctly pressed at the edges. Maybe FG will have an effect if it can get under the tape layer.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2004, 06:39 PM:

If you follow the instructions and aren't using super cheap splicing tape, then FG won't have an effect. If the tape is low quality or you are dousing the film, then it can loosen tape splices.

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 03-14-2004, 09:30 PM:

I used 3M perforatted splice tape (Now use FPC) in splicing work print. I also use Neumade splice tape on my Neutaper SDS splicer when splicing reversal original for contact printing.

Are the above "high" quality?

And what about applying FG with an Ecco D applicator. Is it worth purchasing this device for applying FG or can it be managed just as well with a wipe and running the film through your hands?

Alain

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2004, 09:46 PM:

I can vouch for the Neumade as being a good choice. I've never used the 3M/FPC tape.

Don't waste your money with the ECCO. If you can't use a Kelmar cleaner, you're better off cleaning by hand. Just remember it only takes about an ounce to clean 2 hours of 35mm film. A little goes a long way.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 03-14-2004, 09:54 PM:

Brad, have you ever considered selling graduated bottles? I know it doesnt matter using a cleaner but I dont really know how much an ounce is. Plus I'm sure there are alot of theatres out there without cleaners.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2004, 09:59 PM:

It wouldn't much matter. Due to the variations in everyone's setups (some cleaners run faster, some people cut the media in half, etc), a marked bottle wouldn't do much good.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-14-2004, 10:10 PM:

Err, Brad, a marked bottle would let each operator more easily measure how much they were using, potentially useful for their own tracking and comparisons, not necessarily for comparisons with other theatres.

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2004, 10:20 PM:

Err, John, most theaters just use what they need to do the job and don't spend time making elaborate tracking charts. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-15-2004, 12:07 AM:

Besides, if you are squirting the FG into the pads while they're on the cleaner, it would be awful ahrd to keep track of how much FG you've squirted. Seat-of-the-pants works best.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-15-2004, 12:10 AM:

quote:
CELEBRATING 25 YEARS IN THE MOVIE BUSINESS - March 14, 1979 - March 14, 2004

Wow, congratulations Mike! [thumbsup]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-15-2004, 01:34 AM:

quote:
If you follow the instructions and aren't using super cheap splicing tape, then FG won't have an effect. If the tape is low quality or you are dousing the film, then it can loosen tape splices.

I'm using Jack Roe tape, which I've never had any quality issues with. I generally apply FG by hand, using a 5" square Selvyt cloth, applying one squirt per 400 feet of 16mm approx; two if the element is especially dirty. I would guess that I'm winding at about 100 to 150 feet per minute, and pass the film through the cloth applying very light pressure with thumb and forefinger. I then wind the reel a second time through a dry Selvyt to take off the excess. I have frequently found that a few days after application, tape splices will loosen enough to risk coming apart in a projector or telecine mechanism, usually in the gate.

If I understand Christian correctly, he's talking about workprints running on a Steenbeck - i.e. a continous motion film path which (unless the element has a combined optical track, which a workprint won't) does not apply any significant pressure to the film. This is a very different scenario to running release prints running through a projector. I, too, have never had any joins come apart when running Filmguarded 16mm elements on a Steenbeck, but I have in projection.

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 03-15-2004, 12:34 PM:

Leo:

It looks to me that Christian said his splices held on both Steenbeck and projection:

"Maybe it depends on the brand of splicing tape and how good the splices were made. I don't know about long time effects, but my films cleaned with FG run through a Steenbeck and most have been projected two or three years after treatment without any problem. "

Maybe Christian can chime in and confirm this. I am a little confused by his comment "most have been projected two or three years after treatment". Does that means most of the films projected where 2-3 after treatment, or most of the film projected ok (without splices breaking)?

Thanks,
Alain

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-16-2004, 03:49 PM:

The work prints on which I used FG have been run on editing equipment as well as in standard theatre projection equipment (like Kinoton FP30, Bauer U4C, Philips DP70, running from platters or 6000ft. reels.

Before projection, I always checked the prints on a horizontal rewind table, and all splices were OK, no sign of weakening or edges peeling off. The longest span of time between FG treatment and projection was 3 years, so I feel that FG applied sensibly by hand does not affect tape splices even a few years later.

Certainly continuous motion like on a Steenbeck/KEM table or in a telecine machine will be easier on prints and splices, but in projection the WPs were handled like any standard release print and shown at least three times, so this should not account for the good condition of splices.

In other words: It seems safe enough for me to use FG on work prints, which usually get scratched easily because of dirt and abrasions on the film.

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 03-17-2004, 09:25 PM:

Thanks for the confirmation Christian. All good information to know.

Best,
Alain