|
Author
|
Topic: 8mm Film Cleaning ....DIY alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 11, 2013 11:17 AM
I don't actually believe 2.22 turned film pink Lee, I have plenty
of filmstock that was treated with it from the '70s like Waltons
"Witchfinder","Years B.C.","Planet/Apes series","Golden Voyage
and the list goes on,with no pinking.Thermofilm used to be very good, but I find it a bit like "the emperors new clothes", very
hard to see, as it evaporates before you get it to the film,obviously
key chemicals have been excluded, leaving not a lot really.Some
years ago, I got a can from DFS,the package had been damaged in transit causing the liquid to escape, it is so volatile
that there was absolutely no smell with the package or in the
damaged tin.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gerald Santana
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1060
From: Cottage Grove OR
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted January 11, 2013 12:36 PM
Keith,
Save a little money and buy some Film Guard or Film Renew from Larry Urabanski, these solutions are going to be your best bet for film cleaning and lubrication. They have been tested and for the most part collectors have been using these (as Manuel shows) to "soften" harsh lines on prints, put on by dirty projectors or protruding projector parts. It will not clear up green lines scratched onto the emulsion.
If you're really low on money, you can use a substitution of 90% Isopropyl (nothing lower)alcohol and a tiny drop of mineral oil. This should not be the replacement solution for what F.G. or F.R. does. This would only be used in an emergency or if times are really tough until your film cleaning of choice arrives. If anything you don't really need to clean the film with cleaning solvents unless necessary.
You can easily by Pec Pads from ebay for $10, cut one sheet into thirds and use that to clean the film without any solution, it will do the job. Do not attempt to use anything else like Armor All, Goo Gone or especially 70% alcohol (the other 30% is water you) on the print, it may ruin the emulsion and it might peel as in the case with water damage. Those are only okay to use on the projector, which should be cleaned after every screening and when necessary.
--------------------
http://lostandoutofprintfilms.blogspot.com/
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Heydon
Junior
Posts: 21
From: Burnaby, BC Canada
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted January 14, 2013 12:08 AM
You know, I think this "cleaning" issue falls into 2 (and perhaps 3) categories...
1. cleaning old / questionable /brittle film for projection
2. cleaning old / questionable /brittle film for "transfer" to digital
3. ..and, cleaning the projector ...in particular the gate, and areas around the lens/gate with a view to a satisfactory experience re: 1 and 2 above!
As I've read some of the replies to my original post (which really was related to my objective of transferring a ton of films inherited from family and friends)...because, initially, I've been interested in doing the "telecine" thing myself ...I've concluded:
1. It's critical to have the projector *always* "squeaky" clean to have any hope of generating a decent transfer.
2. Nonwithstanding point #1, and, regardless of the cleanliness of the gate and other components of the projector ...the film itself *has* to be pristine (i.e. clean) to get the best possible image, and to alleviate the ongoing problem of gumming up the optics, gate, etc.
This brings me to yet, another question ...
If I was to outsource the digitizing of my 8mm films (and there are hundreds of companies Google tells me will do it, including "cleaning the film before the transfer") ...now I'm really worried about *what* they're using as a cleaning process on my precious films?
I'm wondering about companies like the big boys (Costco...whom I understand outsource anyway) ...or the "one man band" operations whom do it out of their homes, specifically what they're using to clean/lubricate the film.
Bottom line...is if I use an inappropriate cleaner/lubricant, I'm reading (within this thread) that my film / or the ones which have been entrusted to me could easily be "hooped" forever!
And, again, I'm starting to think if I outsource the digitizing ...I better get a specific answer in terms of the exact process / chemicals used by third parties!
I'm thinking about setting up a survey online:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/
...with the simple query:
"Your service indicates you clean the film prior to transferring/digitizing. What method / chemicals do you use?"
Am wondering if anyone besides myself would be interested?
Keith
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 14, 2013 05:32 AM
I shouldn't think that there'll be much 2.22 knocking about now
Lee. it's quite some time since any of that has been seen.If anyones concerned on particles in the liquid,then transfering it
into a clear glass jar would be the solution.Funnily enough,2.22
used to be supplied by Kanus in just that when they first sold it.The valid point I made though, is that 2.22,even though films
treated years ago,still continues to hide minor abrasions,whereas
the modern treatments don't,as for Thermofilm,what does it actually do.it disappears before you can get it to the film, it has
no lasting properties,if any.Filmrenew is gentle and Crestclene
at least lubricates.Remember when Thermofilm was very similar
in consistancy to 2.22. it actually worked.No doubt chemicals
that were valid in its make up have been omitted,as would be
the case with 2.22 if it were still produced,leaving us with a container of liquid that just evaporates, with no visible effects.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
, the most significant different is the lines in the rigth of screen, between donald and the edge of the screen ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
