Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filmguard in So. Cal?

This is topic Filmguard in So. Cal? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000578

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-17-2002, 03:47 AM:

Is there anybody here using Filmguard in Southern California? I would really like to see an old print at a theater using Filmguard, so I can judge for myself how good an old print can look. At the theater I work at, we use PTR's.

Posted by Jan Hackett (Member # 1231) on 07-17-2002, 12:35 PM:

We switched from PTR's to Filmguard 1 1/2 ago.......Our old print went from horrid to incredible.....Try it............The stuff is marvelous......

------------------
Jan Hackett
Theater Operations Manager
Extreme Screen Dynatheater
NM Museum of Natural History Foundation

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-17-2002, 07:06 PM:

I don't blame you for wanting to see the results in action before you try it, and hopefully you will be able to. But trust me, the stuff works. It does a great job cleaning up old prints, but it is really best if you put FG on a print starting on day one and try to use it as much as you can (don't overdo it) throughout the life of the print. When the print becomes "old" then you will see how good it looks compared to other old, non-FG'd prints at your complex.

Also, if applying FG to an old dirty print, don't expect instant results and start over applying FG when you still see dirt after the first application. Depending on how dirty the old print is, you may have to give it a few days to a week of normal FG use before you really start seeing the difference.

Oh, and I don't recommend using PTR's on a print that has been FilmGuarded. Or at all for that matter. The performance/maitenence ratio (maitenence being the cleaning that must occur between every use) is just to horrible to advocate the use of PTRs in any way, shape or form.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-17-2002, 09:54 PM:

PTRs are an effective film cleaner with very low risk of film damage. Since no chemicals are used or applied to the film, they can be used for cleaning printing originals (printers, telecines, processing machines) or films that come in contact with optical components (e.g., PTRs are widely used in IMAX projection systems).

With normal levels of dirt on the film, they need to be cleaned between shows, which can be done quickly by "see-sawing" low stick adhesive tape to remove the dirt that they took off the film. Highly abraded or very dirty prints can "load up" the PTRs faster, requiring several passes to clean the print.

PTRs do not claim to lubricate the print, or act as a "wet gate" to hide scratches.

Kodak introduced PTR film cleaning in 1989. Kodak (FPC) and other vendors (e.g., Magnasonics, San Lab Systems, Kelmar, Speco) supply PTR film cleaning technology to thousands of satisfied users.
http://www.fpcfilm.com/US/en/motion/FPC/fpc/ptr_main.html
http://www.fpcfilm.com/US/en/motion/FPC/fpc/ptr_prod.html

------------------
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: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-18-2002, 01:07 AM:

We used to have PTRs. I miss them.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-18-2002, 06:10 AM:

Why do you miss them Mike? Are your papers blowing away?

(Just kidding Mr. P)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-18-2002, 10:00 AM:

PTRs were developed to provide an alternative to the DRY media web cleaners (e.g., 3M, Christie, Kelmar), which were about the only on-line cleaner available to theatres at the time (1989). DRY media web cleaners have a high risk of scratching the film if they pick up abrasive dirt, PTRs do not. Media cleaners require media replacement, PTRs can be washed and reused, allowing them to clean millions of feet of film before needing replacement.

Used properly, PTRs are very effective in removing loose particulate dirt from film, and have such low risk of damaging film that they are routinely used on irreplaceable camera negatives. PTRs are a film CLEANER, plain and simple. They are not a film TREATMENT having additional properties like lubrication or scratch hiding.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-18-2002, 02:40 PM:

3M has a media cleaner? Links, please.... and pictures.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-18-2002, 09:21 PM:

Here's info about the 3M web cleaner:
http://www.challengercomponents.com/web/
http://www.northeastphoto.com/fabric.html

The 3M film cleaner was the "grandaddy" of the Christie and Kelmar dry media cleaners. The woven media roll was driven by a separate motor, rather than geared down from a film-driven roller.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 07-19-2002, 01:45 PM:

What I discovered about PTRs is this:
yes, they do transfer particles, from one part of a print to another part of a print.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-19-2002, 02:26 PM:

Particles transfer back to the print only if the PTRs get overloaded with dirt from a print that is being badly abraded by the projector, or an old print that has never been cleaned.

In our theatre tests of PTRs in 1989, just a few passes of the print got most of the dirt off, and then the PTRs were perfectly capable of keeping the print clean without the dirt particles transferring back to the film.

The bad experience cited by Joe in his review was related to the heavy level of projector abrasion/dusting his theatre was experiencing at that time.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-19-2002, 10:22 PM:

Joe Kelly actually patented a dual motor media cleaner that was markeded as the united artist cleaner.
It was even painted pale christie blue for the top of there projectors
It also used a narrower slit media

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2002, 02:16 AM:

quote:
The bad experience cited by Joe in his review was related to the heavy level of projector abrasion/dusting his theatre was experiencing at that time.

And that was solved by Filmguard!

John, do you have any links and/or pics for the cleaner Gordon mentions? I'd ask Gordon but you are the Human Search Engine!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-20-2002, 04:11 AM:

Joe, I know there is a picture in the "Reel People Collection", which is a book Kodak published years ago of all their past Film Notes for the Reel People publications. Since John was nice enough to make sure we were able to get ALL of the past issues for scanning, it is in the archives. Just look for the one about film cleaning.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 07-20-2002, 11:01 AM:

Gracia wrote:

quote:
What I discovered about PTRs is this:
yes, they do transfer particles, from one part of a print to another part of a print.

John wrote:

quote:
The bad experience cited by Joe in his review was related to the heavy level of projector abrasion/dusting his theatre was experiencing at that time.

SPECO supply a special PTR assembly so that the PTR rollers can be changed whilst running film, which is useful on first runs or particularly dirty film.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2002, 04:18 PM:

Brad- I saw that issue, but the scan quality is so bad that I can barely even make out the shape of the object. Anyone have any pics that show detail?

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-21-2002, 04:17 AM:

So, back to my original question... is there anybody in the Southern California area using Filmguard?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2002, 09:25 AM:

The March 1980 issue of Kodak's "Film Notes for Reel People" (publication H-50-10) had photos of the Christie FC-1 cleaner, United Artists Film Cleaner (Joe Kelly's unit), and the 3M Masterwipe Film Cleaner, which all used dry woven webs as the cleaning media.

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 07-22-2002, 09:59 AM:

Here you go Joe:

These show up on eBay once in a while. There have been others with more pictures, but this is the only one that has been recently listed.

Steven Gorsky

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2002, 10:02 AM:

Thanks Steven. That photo is of Joe Kelly's United Artists Film Cleaner. The woven cleaning media ("tape" in the diagram) was held on metal spools attached to the four spindles.

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 07-22-2002, 10:04 AM:

I just realized Joe wanted to see the 3M cleaner not the UA one. If I come across a picture I'll add it.

Steven Gorsky

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2002, 10:08 AM:

The 3M "Masterwipe" (Models 525 and 523) film cleaners were most widely used by photofinishers. 3M also used them on their early PhotoGard coating machines to clean the film before it was coated with PhotoGard.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2002, 11:49 AM:

I wonder if the people who named "Photogard" realize that they spelled "guard" wrong?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2002, 12:07 PM:

Ask the folks at 3M:
http://www.3m.com/market/consumer/photogard/overview.html

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 07-23-2002, 06:33 AM:

PTR do work very well.
I run every show through them ever since Oceans Eleven. There is a noticable difference in the amount of dust left in the projector and the films look like they did on day one.
I think film guard is a good product and i do have a bottle for use on old prints which are not showing in the main screen with the PTR assy.

PTR's rock in my opinion, and are cheaper too!

Darren

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 07-23-2002, 08:33 AM:

I did not have a particularly wonderful expiereince with PTR's at the Century 16 in Corpus, which is the only place I have had the chance to use them. But in the PTR's defense I can not be compltely Objective about hem either. My big problem I had in using them was it was a brand new building which meant that while I was trying to train booth staff and even on opening day, they were still cutting and hanging sheetrock in my booth. which meant that I had dust everywhere. I could have the staff wipe down all the surfaces in the booth and 30 minutes later it was all covered in dust again. This lead to the PTR's Being completly full about 1/3 of the way throughthe show. I never was able to completley clean a print in one shot using them. I do understand from talking with the person who became booth manager after I left that once the dust settled the PTR's became great to use. I use Film Gaurd in my current booth running it with a borrowed dry web media cleaner, and I love the stuff.

Speaking of which I need to order some more today.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-23-2002, 08:46 AM:

PTRs are good at picking up occasional dust on new or well-handled used prints. They don't do much for me on really beat-up old prints, however. They also don't work well when they get old and lose their stickiness.

Filmguard works better, however, as it does more than just remove dust from film--it also helps to hide scratches and appears to have some qualities that relax slightly warped prints. Unlike PTRs, it is also effective on very dirty or otherwise mishandled prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2002, 10:20 AM:

William Parr said: "My big problem I had in using them was it was a brand new building which meant that while I was trying to train booth staff and even on opening day, they were still cutting and hanging sheetrock in my booth. which meant that I had dust everywhere. I could have the staff wipe down all the surfaces in the booth and 30 minutes later it was all covered in dust again. This lead to the PTR's Being completly full about 1/3 of the way throughthe show. I never was able to completley clean a print in one shot using them. I do understand from talking with the person who became booth manager after I left that once the dust settled the PTR's became great to use."

Your experience supports Kodak's initial testing of PTRs. Even when filled with abrasive dirt, PTRs have very low risk of scratching film. We actually tested this by scraping sandpaper grit onto the surface of PTRs and then cleaning camera negative film. Even after multiple passes over the dirt-laden surface of the PTR, the negative was unscratched because of the rolling contact and soft urethane PTR material. When the PTR surface is completely covered with dirt, it loses cleaning effectiveness, but will not damage film.

I have seen cases where dry media cleaners have scratched prints from head to tail when abrasive construction dirt was picked up from the print, literally turning the woven media into a piece of sandpaper.

For film cleaning "there are different horses for different courses". PTRs are ideally suited to situations where you do not want to apply chemicals or solvents to the film, and the dirt levels do not exceed the capacity of the PTRs between routine cleanings. With simple washing after each show (either in water or with "see-saw" of adhesive tape), they can clean millions of feet of film. PTRs are a simple and effective FILM CLEANER, they are not a FILM TREATMENT that changes the properties of the film itself.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-23-2002, 02:39 PM:

It all boils down to effectiveness. The next time someone armed with FilmGuard, a media cleaner and a set of PTRs opens a new theater that has construction dirt everywhere, pick two identical prints (same lab, same film stock, preferably same movie title) and run PTRs on one and FilmGuard on the other. The PTR print will be a joke within a day or two with all of the dirt. The FilmGuard print will still be sparkling months down the road. PTRs only have a chance if the booth environment is kept in sterile condition, which is rarely the case in a commercial booth.

Or you can consider it this way, every time you run PTRs part of the stickiness is wearing off. As such, every time you clean a print with PTRs the PTRs become less and less effective over the useful life of a print. With a media cleaner and FilmGuard, you get the "brand new" effect over and over and whether the test is done in a white glove type of environment or in a torture test (aka: construction dirt areas) FilmGuard is the clear winner everytime whether you are working in a flawlessly clean environment, or projecting with construction dirt.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2002, 03:34 PM:

"Different horses for different courses".

BTW, the PTR "stickiness" is not from an adhesive or additive. It comes from the surface finish of the polyurethane that was chosen. Any loss of effectiveness with age is due to surface contamination (that can be washed off), physical wear, or improper storage (e.g., excessive temperature).

A quick way to test the effectiveness is to roll the PTR over a smooth dusty surface (e.g., the dusty top of a filing cabinet) and observe whether 95% of the dust particles are picked up.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-23-2002, 04:09 PM:

How about using it to clean your floor like Joe did in the latest Film-Tech traing video? Is that an acceptable test?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2002, 04:19 PM:

They actually sell adhesive rollers for quick cleaning of floors and other surfaces. Unfortunately, I don't get the royalties!

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-23-2002, 05:47 PM:

I have a PTR lint roller I bought at the department store across the street.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2002, 01:53 AM:

My experience certainly does not include forever-lasting PTRs. They definitely do lose their "sticky" over time. I have tried washing them off over and over with warm water and a drop of soap. Over and over. Still no sticky. Maybe if I took a knife and carved the top layer off I would get sticky again.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2002, 06:36 AM:

Joe: A theatre cleaning 5 shows per day is cleaning about 1.5 million feet of film per month. How long before your PTRs lost their "sticky"?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2002, 12:15 PM:

quote:
"With simple washing after each show (either in water or with "see-saw" of adhesive tape), they can clean millions of feet of film."

quote:
"A theatre cleaning 5 shows per day is cleaning about 1.5 million feet of film per month."

So again, how is it that PTRs are less expensive than a FilmGuard/media cleaning setup? PTRs are far from $20 items. The answer: PTRs are more expensive and have less cleaning effect and no lubricating qualities.

PTRs have their place in laboratories and special venue situations such as IMAX. FilmGuard/media cleaners have their place in the common 35mm projection booth.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2002, 12:35 PM:

In our testing of PTRs, we found their practical life for cleaning prints was between 10 and 20 million feet of cleaning. The first test theatre (Hoyts Cine-8 in Greece NY) used the original set of PTR's for over a year.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2002, 12:47 PM:

I have a real hard time believing they got good results for a year. I think their good results were more probably from two factors: an extremely clean booth environment and a projector that was very gentle on the film. The only effectiveness I've seen from PTRs is from the first couple of weeks when the rollers are brand new. Within 2 months time, they offer no benefit and will generally make the print dirtier. I've used a few different types as well, including an early version from FPC that was beige in color and the more recent blue/green rollers with the FPC logo stamped on them along with some other brand of which I cannot remember the manufacturer. It's a great idea, but it does not work effectively and I don't know where this "95% cleaning efficiency" nonsense comes from. If they were that effective, then I should be able to clean a reel with one pass and it would be at near-like new cleanliness, which I have never seen happen.

We can argue this point every day for the next year, but PTRs simply are not as effective a a FilmGuard/media cleaner combo in a multiplex. If you really want to continue to try and convince people that PTRs are more effective, then let's both of us perform a public "worst case senario" to see which system is more effective. We can head to the next theater under construction and run prints side-by-side with the two systems. I'll even let you stand there and change out and rewash your PTR rollers every 60 seconds on every show if you like while I sit back and watch the media cleaner run fully automated. Beware though, you WILL leave the demo embarassed. I've opened new theaters before with FilmGuard where dust would settle on the print thick enough that you could wipe a clean spot on the edge of the print by the end of the movie and NONE of the prints had a mark on them even with all of that dirt floating around. Try THAT with PTR rollers!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2002, 02:52 PM:

Again: "Different horses for different courses".

There are many applications where you don't want to, or need to, leave any foreign substance on the film. Proper lubrication of release prints is a legitimate recommendation, and is specified by SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 151.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 07-24-2002, 03:52 PM:

After following this thread it seems to me that as Film-Guard is a Film-Tech product, no matter if everyone said that they were great, Film-Guard will always be better!
I think Shameless plug should be used when ever Film-Guard is mentioned by Brad!
I don't agree that film-guard should be applied to real old prints as they may only be a few prints of that film around and slapping film-guard on them isn't the best way of preserving tham for years to come, I would suggest PTR them which even if the PTR's become loaded, old prints should ideally be rehearsed and you can allways stop and swap PTR's mid rehersal. After just inform the Distributor that the print needs Professional cleaning. Normally if your a respected cinema they will listen to you.
Also before i used PTR's the prints didnt get that dirty, so if your prints are getting dirty without any cleaners, i suggest the projector/filmpath should be looked into to see why the film is getting a hard time as it is shown.
My Cinemeccanica projectors (vic 8/5's, probably not the most film friendly in most peoples eyes), I havnt had any major 'nasty to the film' incidents. So if your Century's and Strongs out there in the U.S. mutilate the film, buu some nice european projectors! lol

Enough for now anyway ,but please put a SHAMLESS PLUG whenever
Film-Guard is said to be 1000% better than PTR's and dont be a Mr Lucas and up the product just so you can get more money.

Darren
P.S. Who else thinks Mr John Pytlak rules!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2002, 04:02 PM:

Darren, if you will notice, I generally do not comment on FilmGuard threads except when asked a question, however John has been posting hard core lately about the wonders of PTRs, so I felt it only suitable for me to post as well. Do note that Mr. Pytlak played a key role in the invention of PTRs. Think about it, and let the rest of the comments from people other than John and I on the site speak for themselves.

Regarding your incorrect implications about how PTRs can be removed mid-show, bear in mind that not all PTR cleaner mounts are designed so that they are by-passable in mid show. Also, with a media cleaner (which is apparent that you have never used) the media cloth is constantly turning, presenting a fresh stretch of media.

Finally, I have an extensive collection of old film (basically trailers because I could get two brand new copies of each for comparison purposes) stored in a variety of conditions dating back about 13 years now. In all situations, regardless of how they were stored, and without exception, the FilmGuarded print is in better condition than the identical copy stored dry. The prints not FilmGuarded have dried out, become brittle, warped and cracked. Make sure you are speaking from experience whenever you speak about a product, or make sure you put your own disclaimer in there that "I have not tried this product, but that product works well for me"...or something to that nature.

So please answer the question, have you ever personally used FilmGuard? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you.

And yes I agree with you that Cinemecannica projectors are incredibly gentle on film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-24-2002, 04:02 PM:

Brad and many others prefer FilmGuard for treating release prints. Many prefer PTRs for their application. It's a free market, and users will choose the best product for their particular application. Brad has been very upfront about not being able to use FilmGuard in certain applications such as original negatives or IMAX projectors, and warning of the pitfalls of improper use or over application.

PTR's only CLEAN the film, they are not a FILM TREATMENT intended to change the properties of the film, such as providing lubrication or hiding scratches.

"Different horses for different courses".

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 07-24-2002, 04:16 PM:

Ok using the wise words,
"Different horses for different courses".

Enough said. No hard feelings but...

Quote
'Regarding your incorrect implications about how PTRs can be removed mid-show, bear in mind that not all PTR cleaner mounts are designed so that they are by-passable in mid show.'

I said ....
Quote
'you can allways stop and swap PTR's mid rehersal.'

Sorted.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2002, 07:52 PM:

John,

It's hard to say how much use my PTRs had on them because I never used them constantly except on a print of Titanic. Also City of Angels and Saving Private Ryan. From then on we'd use them off an on. Somehow the print of Titanic stayed fairly clean. Not spotless, though. It was a used print when we got it (I think the managers ordered a new print to replace our dirty print) so maybe it was a "P5'd" print (It was called 'P5' until we named it 'Filmguard') from one of Brad's test theaters and that's why it didn't shed as much. It did have some blotches in a few reels that obviously occured at the lab and I can see one of Brad's test theaters rejecting the print. But of course it was probably run with P5 until the new print arrived. Hey you never know! But that print did give me a near-steady 0 error rate from our Dolby Digital basement readers. Actually I seem to remember Brad saying that none of his test theaters (besides Northpark) was running Titanic, so maybe the print was coated with a layer of magical power, because it definitely did not shed.

Even after they lost their "sticky" the PTRs did still gather dust and dirt, but not much. You couldn't tell the difference after running PTR's on a print for a day. The "sticky" just wasn't "sticky" enough. PTRs could increase their value if you could peel layers off to get a "like new" roller after the current layer had worn out. PTRs are great for camera negatives and stuff like that. Filmguard for your average movie theater and archival purposes.

Darren Briggs-
I had a print that was very old and broke every single time it was run. I put Filmguard on that and it stopped breaking. Filmguard really relaxes acetate prints. I believe that with my Filmguarding I have extended the overall life of that print considerably. Plus the print looked incredible after a couple of days of Filmguarding. This can also be verified by any one of the projectionists who work at my theater. Sorry if you don't feel that's a good thing.

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-24-2002, 09:48 PM:

I have never tried Filmguard, and I am going to wait till I see an example of it before I even bring it up to the head projectionist. It doesn't look like anybody in So. Cal. is using FG, so until I go on vacation somewhere near one of your theaters, I am out of luck. As far as PTR's losing their stickiness, we have been using the same PTR rollers for at least a few months (I am sure much longer than that, as I have only been employed here for that long). Although they don't feel sticky to the touch, I can feel the rollers sticking to the film. They still collect dirt. As I mentioned in another post, the Wizard of Oz print that we used for our Summer Movie Camp was filthy. Ran an interlock for our first showing, and both sets of PTR's were packed with dirt. This is dirt that would still be on the film had we not used PTR rollers. As to the performance of Filmguard, I can only wait till I see it for myself. As for PTR rollers, I know they take a lot of dirt of the film.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 07-25-2002, 04:58 AM:

Jim,
We use FilmGuard in L.A. and you're welcome to stop by the theatre. Just sent you an email.

Posted by Jan Hackett (Member # 1231) on 07-25-2002, 03:02 PM:

John....I know you are an incredibly intelligent film guy......but
I have used PTR's.........my film has been trashed and I have a clean room booth enviroment....Used filmguard....my prints are like new and I have a 6 month run on a print. Maybe your association with kodak limits your praise or else you just havn't used the product.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2002, 09:57 AM:

As noted before, it would be unfair to comment on the suitability of proprietary film treatments without thoroughly testing them all. For example, a complete "Arrhenius Test" of dye stability takes several years to run, and costs thousands of dollars per test:
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic31-02-005_2.html

There are private and public labs that can be hired to evaluate the effects of various film treatments and storage conditions on long term film stability:
http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/8contents.htm

Kodak has published numerous technical papers in the SMPTE Journal that discuss the properties of the various chemicals suitable for film cleaning, wet-gate printing, and film lubrication to aid vendors in formulating their film treatments. SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 151 specifies proper lubrication of release prints.

Many others in this thread and others have made positive comments about PTR film cleaning in their applications. Again, PTRs are an effective and low cost method of CLEANING film in many applications where the use of solvents and chemicals is not advised or practical.