This is topic "Film Renew" in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000831
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 22, 2004, 05:00 AM:
After reading Kevin's frightening comment on another post about a certain product, I'm just wondering now which is the best film guard solution to use...
I've searched the forum and, apparently, the better ones are discontinued.
Any experience with "Film Renew" sold by Urbanski or Wittner?
Any other advice?
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 26, 2004, 05:36 AM:
Hi Jean-Marc, I persoanlly find filmrenew a bit too strong though its quite good, not as good as thermofilm is or was though.
You could try LGP they may still have some T,film about.
I think about the least toxic around now is filmgaurd available form the states, leaves a bit of grease behind as well.
I think being sensible with film cleaner we need to remember the huge list of cine people who have died of cancer, not necessarily linked but its a strange one. I`d personally go for the least iffy on your nose and head you can find and then do it wearing decent gloves and in the yard or garden.
A friend of mine just did some filmrenew with his hands and they went terrible, all open and sore so you need to be careful.
A bit of furniture polish on a soft cloth never seems to do too much harm if you`ve not much to do and I wondered how baby oil would do.
Best Mark.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 26, 2004, 08:30 AM:
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the advice (and the other frightening stories ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) I guess I'll settle for Filmguard...
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 26, 2004, 12:45 PM:
Hi Jean-Marc, films going out tomorrow so should be with you soon,
best Mark.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 26, 2004, 01:13 PM:
hey Mark,
Got your email. Nice to see that the computer is working again. Looking forward to receiving film. Do you know how many UFO episodes were given the 400ft treatment? (I've heard 6...)
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 26, 2004, 02:22 PM:
Hi Jean-Marc, not sure, I`ve seen three, the cat with ten lives, exposed and idnetified, but I know there are more out there, you can get them in 3x400 versions as well but I think the 400`s are pretty good.
best Mark.
Posted by Ian O'Reilly (Member # 76) on October 26, 2004, 02:34 PM:
Mark / Mr Sheen
Jackie said when you have finished cleaning your films with furniture polish, could you pop over and give the living room the once over!!
Regards
Ian
Ps It's a good job Mr Milman is on holiday or you would be receiving some stick off him.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 26, 2004, 02:53 PM:
Thanks Ian. How about car polish? What else? Marmite?
I can't believe it's not ThermoFilm...
Mark, you just added one UFO title I was missing ("cat with 10 lives"). So far, I count 6 cutdowns:
- Identified
- Exposed
- Timelapse (this one is hilarious, with a great go-kart chase)
- Psychobombs
- Cat with 10 lives
- Survival
I've seen some 3x400ft episodes appearing on used lists but I like the 400ft version (and they look rather nice, side by side, on the shelf).
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 26, 2004, 03:32 PM:
I'm just doing some tests, along with another member of the Lightwater 6, with WD40 which is available from your local Halfords here in the UK. What got me going on this was the fact that WD40, Filmguard and Filmrenew all have that sort of musty/mildew smell to them and probably are fairly similar in makeup.
Mark, thanks for those earlier statistics earlier! I'm sure we all wanted to hear that. Lighten up man ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Kev.
Posted by Ian O'Reilly (Member # 76) on October 26, 2004, 03:39 PM:
kevin
IMHO WD40 is fine on optical prints but don't use on magnetic prints, you will get a oil build up on the pinch roller which in turn will cause WOW.
Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on October 26, 2004, 03:47 PM:
I can vouch for Film Renew...overall...a really fine cleaner and conditioner. As with any chemical use it wisely....ventilation helps....if you soak prints...expect tape splices to come apart. I've found cleaning with cloth through rewinds usually is no problem for tape splices.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 26, 2004, 04:03 PM:
Hi Ian, I too have had that problem with other cleaners. 2.22 left a wax or the like behind on the pinch roller as does other cleaners etc. On my GS I regularly clean the 2 rubber rollers with isoprop to cut down this very problem. I dont think from the tests I have done so far that WD40 is any worse in that respect. I do know one thing though and that is that projection is really quiet with WD40. Is that a slogan for the use of WD40? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Kev.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 26, 2004, 04:14 PM:
Hi Kev, not trying to be gloomey and if you have a think its not even a statistic,the numbers are very high, its quite unusual and rather worrying so i`m just a big believer in suggesting anyone does it with good gloves and outside.
Some twit wrote in to Ace or a similar mag not that long ago and suggested that people use carbon tetrachloride and they printed it!!!!!!!!!!!!, can`t remember if they said to just use your fingers and we all know how downright deadly that is.
Personally I find WD40 a bit to strong, I did it in the garden and still went up with the fairies!!!!!!!.
I`d say its probaly better suited to 16mm though I would expect it might have a very detramentle effect on colour stability.
Shame classic stuff went a bit odd, as that was good though still very strong.
222 was great but it definately going by even walton lowfades I`ve seen hit colour hard over time. I`ve seen so many usually sound stocks on super 8 with a thermofilmed or 222 such and such date on very pinking.Usually 222.
Its all chemical and so are we I suppose.So caution, thats all.
Best Mark.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 26, 2004, 04:27 PM:
Come on Mark, leave it out. Where on earth did you get those facts from? I dont think that the number of deaths from Cancer within the film hobby realms are any higher than any other walk of life.
BTW have you been hitting the bottle as i had a bit of trouble unravelling that last reply
Any chemical thats used has to be treated with respect interms of good ventilation and wearing rubber gloves etc.
Kev.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 26, 2004, 04:45 PM:
Hi Kev, go through the dealers that are no longer with us and ask what they died of, its way over usual figures, thats just a simple observation and the forum is all about sharing things we come accross etc.
I think its very valid and needs to be taken seriously if using these products.
best Mark.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 26, 2004, 10:59 PM:
The WD40 idea has been around for years and tests have been done. Among other problems, WD40 will cause leeching of the color dyes and will cause various problems with polyester base films, commonly unremovable spotting. It is also very flammable. Sure it's mega cheap, but you get what you pay for.
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on October 27, 2004, 11:00 AM:
Brad, WD40 is mega cheap. Could be the fact that they sell in excess of over 4 MILLION tins annually. How many bottles of Filmgaurd are sold annually? Mark trust me, it wasn’t the WD40 that made you go with the Fairies, insufficient solvent content. BTW the most common cause of cancer deaths in men is testicular cancer, I personally apply my film cleaner by hand so should be ok in that department.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 27, 2004, 12:13 PM:
Mark
"Hi Kev, go through the dealers that are no longer with us and ask what they died of,...."
Can I have the name of your "medium"?
Craig,
Oh B*ll*cks, when it said pass through two soft pads....
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 27, 2004, 05:18 PM:
Tony, I missed that in Marks reply and I have to say I nearly DIED laughing.
Brad, so what solvents are used in Filmrenew and Filmgaurd if any?
Noticed that the bottle of Filmgaurd we have, had no Health and Safety instructions which are now needed on items like this in the UK!
I will ask Keith W here in the UK about his use of WD40 as he has used it various times over the years. He should be able to confirm if it causes fade etc as i think he has used it on extracts he has shown at the BFCC over the years.
Mark, What do you use to clean and lube your films with?
Kev.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 27, 2004, 06:54 PM:
MSDS sheets for every chemical product is required by law to be made available. You can simply email myself for a copy of FilmGuard's MSDS sheet, or Larry Urbanski for a copy of FilmRenew's MSDS sheet. Past the MSDS sheet, FilmGuard's mixture is protected by patent for another 24 years.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on October 27, 2004, 08:39 PM:
Brad Miller wrote:
<MSDS sheets for every chemical product is required by law to be made available. You can simply e-mail myself for a copy of Film Guard's MSDS sheet, or Larry Urbanski for a copy of FilmRenew's MSDS sheet. Past the MSDS sheet, Film Guard's mixture is protected by patent for another 24 years.>
I don't think that people are looking to crack the code to Film Guard, they just want to be safe. If it is a cleaner solvent that they can use within reasonable guidelines.
The MSDS protects the Right to Know Law, established by
OSHA (Occupational Safety Heath Administration) in the USA.
This was also established to help hobbyists use products safely.
Indeed, a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) are required by law to be made available to the public when they make a request to know about a product. This is a result of workers using products in their daily trade that caused ill effects to their health.
To obtain an MSDS is important to those that question the absorption by direct skin contact and by airborne threshold levels. Most importantly, it is necessary to know how to interpret an MSDS.
The toxicity chart is labeled from 0-4, with zero indicating non traceable levels to four being the highest.
The chart should indicate the type of protection to be used as well.
A MSDS should include the following:
as in FilmRenew.
Section I.
1.Product Class: Petroleum Hydrocarbon
2.Trade Name: Film RENEW
Health:1
Flammability:2
Reactivity: 0
Section II.
It should include a chart for Hazardous Ingredients
which include minimal Threshold levels stated in PPM
(Parts Per Million) Generally speaking, the lower the number, the more concentrated it will be to fill the air in millions. (10,000 ppm) would take a lot to fill the air.
The other sections should include:
Section III.
Emergency and First Aid Procedures
Section IV.
Physical Data
Section V.
Fire and Explosion Data
Section VI.
Health Hazard Data
Section VII.
Reactivity Data
Section VIII.
Spill or Leak Procedures
Section IX.
Safe Handling and Use information
Section X.
Special Precautions
Hobbyists have the right to be knowledgeable and aware when using these products.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 28, 2004, 02:54 AM:
Michael,
Fascinating stuff. I am not going to join Mark in scaring the cine world especially as I am probably more at risk of breathing in hydro-carbons whilst filling the car etc etc. Also, unless you are regularly cleaning films for long periods and take no common sense precautions then I doubt that these products are really harmful.
Brad, why not kill this issue completely by posting the MSDS thingy here?
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 28, 2004, 03:33 AM:
Gents, thank you for all the precious details.
Mark, I think we're all sensible collectors, aware that handling chemicals requires a minimum of safety.
I certainly agree that we can go on with this fascinating debate but - please, pretty please, with sugar on top - may I do a quick poll in order to address my original question?
- Who's vouching for "Film Guard"?
- Who's vouching for "Film Renew"?
(The later being apparently easier to get from dealers)
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 28, 2004, 04:19 AM:
Hi well I suppose cancer is a bit of a laugh after all, what was I thinking of suggesting people take care when using these products.
Anyway it would be a price worth paying wouldn`t it, how silly of me.
I forgot that saying anything vaguely negative about anything relating super 8 might mean mass exodus to dvd etc I`m so very very sorry.
Also sometimes its easy to forget just how incredibly knowledgeable some people on this forum, and I humbly withdraw my suggestion that getting any of these chemicals etc worked into your skin or into your lungs could be anything other than good for you.
There may be certain fluids etc that I would always personally avoid but thats my choice of course.
Jean-Marc both film renew and filmgaurd are very good in different ways, myself for general usuage I would try filmguard first ts especially good for old acetate films and keeping them running sweetly through the machine.
Best Mark.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 28, 2004, 04:36 AM:
Tony, I posted a pdf version of the MSDS a long time ago on the main website and people who have no clue as to how to read an MSDS sheet started panicking thinking it was a concoction that would create a nuclear explosion. It is because of the general public's ignorance on how to read a safety data sheet which is why it is no longer just posted anywhere. However anyone (even if you have not used the product before) is free to email in a request for one, and one will be promptly emailed to you. Every manufacturer HAS to oblige with this request by law, so it's certainly not anything that any manufacturer is trying to hide. However due to the typical response from the general non-thinking public, you will find very few manufacturers bother to put the MSDS online because of this reasoning.
For those who have never read an MSDS sheet before, you should request some for various chemicals you have around the house first though so you will have something to compare with. Get yourself an MSDS for that can of Raid bug spray in your kitchen, perhaps one for that can of paint thinner, maybe one for your can of lighter fluid you use for your charcoal grill out back, and grab one for WD40 while you're at it. These are all readily available from the manufacturers for the asking, and it will give you a better idea of how to properly interpret a safety data sheet by comparing them.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 28, 2004, 04:52 AM:
I think as good as anyhing your smell reaction to a product gives you a fair indication of how it will be for you.
The one I`ve found least trouble is by chance filmgaurd, reminds me more of baby oil, then thermofilm, the newer version.
There`s also a very natural product that contains casteroil a friend has just told me about, as some people are more sensitive to certain things thats very nice and natural and meant to be rubbed on the skin.
Best Mark.
Just need to get the name again
Best Mark.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 28, 2004, 07:03 AM:
Mark, where has your sense of humour gone ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
No one is knocking your concerns for the safe use of chemicals many of which (especially those in the older chemistry employed in film cleaning) were/are very hazardous. Brad is right though, look around the house and consider what is lurking in their first. Widen the debate and include mobile phones and wireless technology etc etc etc.
Cancer is no joke nor joking matter.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 28, 2004, 07:12 AM:
I agree entirely Tony, we are Besset with things these days.
I was listening to the news yesterday and it said something like 1 in 8 kids have ashma now.
I`m only 37 but I remmeber at school it was hardly any in the whole school.
Its in food etc etc etc, but I`m always aware of the carbon tet thing and how people used to apply that god help us.
Its just a cautionary thing.
Still got a sense of humour, well sort of.
best Mark.
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on October 28, 2004, 08:46 AM:
"Repent Repent The End Of The World Is Nigh."
Mark, life is too short to worry, chill & take each day as it comes. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Craig
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on October 28, 2004, 12:06 PM:
Could we not post a new thread laid out (pardon the pun)
like this:-
Name of Collector Film Cleaner Used Cause of Death
Obviously, the first two categories could be completed now and instructions left with next of kin to forward details as required to Brad.
We could do a comparison on a year by year basis!!!
On the old testicular cancer remark. You don't use cleaner that way Tony!! BUT the scenario is. You are in your cleaning shed using the old film cleaner you get a call from your beloved to come in for a mug of coffee. You come into the house it has been cold you feel the need to have a call of nature.
You go to the bathroom well I hope you do!!
Do you wash your hands before you go for a pump or do it afterwards!! 9/10 men will not wash their hands twice.
So you go with the flow and give your hands a thorugh wash
after the event.
Back down to the lounge for a coffee. Gee it tastes great
as it was cold in that shed. You even get a nice warm sensation
around the old nuts!!
I rest my case Sherlock
By the way, I think "Large Bowel" is the biggest cancer killer
of men. So, no foreign objects up your ass when cleaning films!!
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 28, 2004, 12:10 PM:
Mike,
Like one one of my earlier strap-lines said...My Coconuts fell off!
This is getting real silly now ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Nice to hear from you- thought you had defected to the other forum permanently (oops there I go again putting my big mouth in my foot)
Tony
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on October 28, 2004, 12:19 PM:
Hi Tony
You mean it was serious in the first place!!
Very busy getting George Bush re elected.
Vote Early Vote Often as the saying goes!!
Mike
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 28, 2004, 12:50 PM:
Great post Mike, come on Tony The boys on here have got to get over the forum envy thing good as the other one is. Is it jsut me or is there a slight gather round and harry feeling for the wrong doers who dare to go on the other place!!!!!!!!.
The silvo screen forum is a great place to go and talk about just what ever you want to, its good for film and good for allsorts of things and opens things up nicely to many formats.
This is a great forum too and its Ok to bin any of that niggling insecurity about the hobby, we all know its a bit on the slide, its innevitable and me mentioning that isn`t going to speed it up or slow it down.
Derek from derann said it was dead in the water years ago and the main thrust of it surely is, but we can still all enjoy it and say what we feel and the odd mention of anything other than praise and glory is all part of it. I love super 8 but certainly not foreign objects.
Best Mark.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on October 28, 2004, 11:00 PM:
It's good to view this topic objectively.
Cancer is a serious topic, and it's good to keep a light hearted mindset to break the tedium in serious topics, but not to dismiss the serious implications which can result in chemical misuse.
1,1,1 Triclorethane was a chemical which has been banned here in the USA, and it was the main ingredient in Kodak Film Cleaner for many years.
Another Fast drying Chemical sold here was a product put out by the late Marty Bahn here in the USA, and it was called: Film Miracle, and distributed by Ashland Chemical, INC. in the USA.
The generic ID for this product is a Chlorinated Hydrocarbon. To use this properly requires special gloves made for this product.
This product, and similar products of this kind has been considered toxic.
I am sure some people have used it, and can speak of it today.
The Film Renew is a Stoddard Solvent, which is similar to mineral spirits.
This does not indicate that hobbyists should begin using paint thinner to clean their films? Quite the contrary, because the chemistry in Film Renew is proven to maintain film, and we do not know how mineral spirits will effect film in the long run. We also do not know how the chemical in combination with the film may affect our health.
I am not down playing the toxicity of Film Renew, I'm just stating what I was told.
Our chemistry in each individual is the same, but our tolerance to chemicals may differ, and we must think about providing ourselves with protection. This includes adequate ventilation with a fan to exhaust the fumes away or out of the room, with a good supply of fresh air into the room. Minimal exposure will ensure the best health conditions as well.
Lab Safety Supply is a company that sells Industrial safety supplies here in the USA. However I am sure that you can purchase the proper gloves at any local hardware store, and garden shop which specializes in plant chemicals in your area. I believe it is a green neoprene glove that you will need to use along with the Film Renew.
As Brad mentioned earlier, check out the products in your home, shed and garage and look to see what needs to be tossed out properly in accord with your community disposal codes. Also to understand how to interpret a MSDS is worth while in understanding. I am sure their are chemists and technicians that work at the safety houses which will be glad to assist anyone in purchasing the proper gloves along with a small explanation to the MSDS.
Now what is in that Film Guard, that we should all know about?
I will try to locate an interesting article which I had read about film and plastics, which was written for Discover Magazine at another time.
Enjoy the hobby, and be safe.
Best,
Michael
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 29, 2004, 02:00 AM:
Michael
Well said.
Mark? What are you going on about envy on this forum over another. That is totaly wrong. Many members of this forum post on the other forum .
I would say that there have been a number of remarks on the other forum directed at members of this one that are far from complimentary.
Justify your remarks please.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 29, 2004, 03:42 AM:
Hi tony its just a feeling one gets sometimes.
I think there is plenty of room for both and both serve a good purpose, bring people to the hobby etc etc.
Super 8 neeeds all the exposure it can get after all.
best Mark.
Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on October 29, 2004, 01:56 PM:
Ken layton (on the FCFC) says that WD-40 is terrible on projectors ......it eventually gets "sludgy" which causes gunk build-up and could potentially wreck your unit. He is vehemently opposed to its use with anything regarding film or projectors. Silicone seems to be a safer bet.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on October 29, 2004, 05:58 PM:
Be careful when using silicone. Surfaset cleaner lubricant contained silicone and too much of it on film would cause the film to chatter and skip in the film gate, let alone the ill effects of silicone.
Do not use WD 40 on your film collections. It is an oil, and oil attracts dirt and grime. We do not know how this will affect film in the long run.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 29, 2004, 06:52 PM:
Will FilmRenew or FilmGuard have any bad/side effect on the Super 8 mag sound stripes?
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on October 29, 2004, 11:05 PM:
I have not tried Film Guard on Mag stripe films, but I have used Film Renew.
A friend of mine sold me some film with Film Guard on it, and so far I have not noticed the stripe sliding off of the film. I will say, that the film purrs very quietly with film guard on it. I also noticed that tape splices seem to appear somewhat milky in appearance with Film Guard on it.
I have used Film Renew, and have applied it to the sprocket side of the film, and have painted a small amount onto the base and emulsion surfaces for about an inch, wraped a Kleenex Tissue ( generally the Kleenex will not shred) and wipe the film alternating the pad between a pair of hand rewinds. On the return to the original reel, I will use a velvet polish fabric cloth and pass the cloth through the film using the rewinds again. This will remove any dust from the film. Make sure not to apply alot of pressure during the wiping. After that, I will wind the film both ways until the film is dry and it's important to wind loosly, so the cleaner will dry on the film properly.
I always believe that a wet wound film may lead to spotting, warping and curl.
Film Renew is a slow drying cleaner, and Film Guard is even slower that Film Renew.
After projecting the film, it's best to rewind fairly tightly to prevent curl and warp.
Ecco made a fast drying cleaner specially made for mag stripe film, but I did not like how it worked, and did not care for how I felt after using it.
Most importantly, use protective gloves and adequate ventilation.
Dispose of all tissues when done in a plastic bag.
It's good to clean the velvet polishing cloth. This is done by wiping some Film Renew on the cloth with a tissue.
At this point, you would be able to clean the film with the properties of Film Renew when it's on the surface of the cloth. Not saturated but just that the fibers are touched up with the cleaner from the wiping of the tissue.
Washing of the Velvet Cloth is good to do also.- Use Gloves!
Best,
Mike
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 29, 2004, 11:50 PM:
Larry Urbanski would be the proper person to verify mag track compabitility on FilmRenew, but I can verify 100% that FilmGuard is safe for mag tracks. You will actually find that your sound quality IMPROVES, because the FilmGuard keeps the heads clean as well as the tracks itself. Any dirt at all produces dropouts in the audio.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 30, 2004, 01:49 AM:
Michael, Brad, thank you for answering that.
Being in contact with Larry Urbanski, I guess I'll opt for Film Renew (sorry, Brad ).
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 30, 2004, 04:56 AM:
"Film Renew is a slow drying cleaner, and Film Guard is even slower that Film Renew.
After projecting the film, it's best to rewind fairly tightly to prevent curl and warp."
Well I'm not convinced I want that to happen. This is the problem we have had with the Derann LFC if used incorrectly.
All these film Lubricants contain an oil or grease substance be it silcon or whatever so all will leave a coating within the machine which is susceptable to picking up dirt. With whatever cleaner/lube is being used it is important to clean the film path after the machine is used.
At the end of the day if my tests show that WD40 is a good, readily available to use item, then I will use it and likwise the same with any other of the products available.
Safety is an issue, and as a lot of people have said before, you use these items sensibly like any other chemical about the house.
Mark, this thread has gone over the top on the cancer aspect as it has on the other forum. I'm sure a little film cleaner used correctly is not going to kill you. You like film dont you? well think of all the people in the manufacture and processing of the film that gives you pleasure who have worked with things over the years which probably did damage their health before the laws were tightened up. All of these cleaners etc would be off the market by now due to the very tight laws if they were that dangerous or contained banned substances. I hate to think what long term exposure to some of those disinfectants you use will do to you?
Anyway to date: Film left soaked in industrial strength WD40 has not suffered at all and the stripe is certainly 100% ok. Its now being left for a full week. A rubber roller from a GS is also now being soaked to see if it attacks the rubber or makes it swell.
Kev.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 30, 2004, 05:03 AM:
Kev,
Argh! Don't know what to think, now...
Well, I'd love to read the results of your investigation regarding WD40. That product, I can get from the DIY shop a block away from my house.
Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on October 30, 2004, 05:54 AM:
I am very impressed with the results that Kev and craig have had from using WD40, i had my reservations at first but now coming round to the idea. I have cleaned a rather scratched and very dry film that was very unstable during projection jumping all over the place. After treatment this film has noticeably fewer scratches and runs through my projector as sweet as a nut, with a very stable picture. I shall put this reel of film away and look at it again in 12 months time.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 30, 2004, 06:00 AM:
I guess my only concern is that I can at least sue Brad if Filmguard fails (when I am 70 perhaps!)
If WD40 does leave spots after a year or two then we have a real problem.
Also- when buying films- how will we know who has cleaned what with what!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 30, 2004, 10:05 AM:
I have not tried WD40, but I don't like it because it has such a strong smell and is inflammable. For the past year I have been testing AmorAll Lintless wipes (available at any supermarket or auto store for $4.35 for 25 wipes) . One wipe will clean and lubricate several reels of film. I have had good success with this product, having used it on several old acetate prints which jumped and chattered through the projector, but which now run very smoothly after a couple of rewinds through the ArmorAll wipes. I have also found it does a good job of cleaning and diminishing scratches. Also it polishes and lubes the mag stripe, so you get much better sound quality and less wear on the sound heads. So far I have seen no ill effects on B&W or color prints or the mag stripe. And of course this is a very safe product compared with the toxic film cleaners.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 30, 2004, 11:26 AM:
Interesting...
Paul, which ones do you use "Cleaning" wipes or "Protectant" wipes?
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on October 30, 2004, 03:50 PM:
Blimey these sound good, anyone nknow if you can get them in the UK, hope so.
I have heard that lavender oil is god as well from a reliable source.
Best Mark.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 30, 2004, 04:27 PM:
I am currently using the ArmorAll Lint-Free Protectant Wipes. In the USA they are packaged in a yellow cylindrical box, and you pull the wipes out of a hole in the cover, one at a time. The cloth is lintless, and is already pre-moistoned with the Armorall when it is pulled out of the box, so there is no mess, and the application of the fluid is fairly consistent. I have not tried any of the other Armorall products, which are similarly packaged. The stuff is really intended to put a shine on automobile plastics and vinyl interiors, and to protect against UV degradation of these materials. The box warns against using this material on surfaces where slipperiness is a hazard, but of course this is just what want on our films! Since film is a plastic material I thought it might be worth trying it, and it definately seems to make old acetate prints more pliable and more slippery, and quieter runnning through the projector after 2 or 3 applications. I can't compare the effectiveness of Armor All versus film cleaners, because I refuse to use film cleaners- just not prepared to take the health risks. I would be interested to hear if anyone else has tried ArmorAll wipes on a test reel of film.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 30, 2004, 07:04 PM:
This is tempting. I'm going to give ArmorAll a try. Not sure if I can find it here but since I'll be in the US next week...
And... We reached 50 posts, Gentlemen.
Posted by Ian John (Member # 26) on October 30, 2004, 09:28 PM:
I'm using "SurfaSet" film cleaner. A friend of mine in London used it when he run a film library, and after he changed over to video/DVD's he gave me a couple of gallons of the stuff.... I've not tried it on my 8mm yet, but have been using it for a couple of years on 16mm without any problems, but dunit stink!!
Ian. UK.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on October 31, 2004, 12:32 AM:
The Armor All sounds interesting, but I'm wondering if coating the film will prevent it from breathing? I believe that acetate films 'breathe' or gas out?
What's in Armor All? If its mostly water, then water is not good for film.
I guess its worth asking for a MSDS sheet for this product.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 31, 2004, 05:07 AM:
Apparently, ArmorAll is distributed in the UK .
So, one of our British members could have a look.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 31, 2004, 08:58 AM:
Information about ArmorAll can be found at:
www.armorall.com or phone 1-800-222-7784
I have emailed them the following question:
I use Armorall all the time for my car. It is a wonderful product and has kept my auto interior looking like new for over 10 years.
But I have found another use for your product. I am a film collector, and have found that the ArmorAll Protectant wipes are great for cleaning and lubricating reels of polyester and cellulose acetate based motion picture film. However one concern is whether the product contains materials which might have a long term effect on degrading the dyes used in color films, and also whether the product contains water which is not so good for film. I know that Armorall is patented but what is in it? Can you answer my concerns about suitability for film cleaning and lubrication. And can you email me an MSDS sheet.
Thank you , and thanks for a great product!
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on October 31, 2004, 09:38 AM:
Nice move, Paul.
Let's hope they don't answer using the mandatory corporate tone ("Thank you for choosing ArmorAll. ArmorAll is a car care product and should be use for car care only, blah-blah-blah...")
Then again, the MSDS sheet should help.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 31, 2004, 09:54 AM:
Paul,
Is it the Dashboard one you buy- can you take a look at the UK site and let us know?
Interesting that their head office is in Hounslow- right next door to Perry's. There was me thinking Ian's "glow" was all natural from selling all those films but now we know differently!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 31, 2004, 12:35 PM:
Hi Tony,
Yes I think the ArmorAll protectant wipes that I am experimenting with are marketed in the UK as the Dashboard wipes. The canister is the same yellow color. I have not tried any of the other products such as the leather cleaner, or orange cleaner, they are probably different formulations. Try it on an old piece of film and let us know if you see any improvement.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 31, 2004, 01:21 PM:
Paul Thanks
Actually chaps I am a tad concerned that we are getting all worked up over a bit of film cleaning
Oh dear, now where did I put my anorak..... .
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on October 31, 2004, 01:44 PM:
Tony, you left it in my WD40 research lab.
Craig
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 31, 2004, 02:50 PM:
quote:
However one concern is whether the product contains materials which might have a long term effect on degrading the dyes used in color films, and also whether the product contains water which is not so good for film. I know that Armorall is patented but what is in it? Can you answer my concerns about suitability for film cleaning and lubrication.
Paul, I shouldn't have to point this out, but do remember that the people at Armorall are not film people, and know nothing about film. As such they are wholly unqualified to answer whether that product will cause long term damage or not. I'm afraid you're on your own in regards to testing.
Everyone please remember that just because something looks great right now, does not mean that you won't unbox a reel you cleaned with something a few years back to find out it is unplayable anymore. Long term testing is absolutely mandatory. Just look at the old Eastman film stocks. They had no idea the colors would naturally turn red over time...and that was coming from Kodak!
FilmGuard has been in testing for about 15 years now with no long term problems. I think FilmRenew has been around for a similar amount of time. Plus there are more options than just those two film cleaners which have stood the test of time you can use, so I am in no way trying to push one particular product here. Just remember, 5 years down the road the films you clean today with some random chemical you find at the hardware store or under the kitchen sink may be unplayable...and unreplaceable! It's at that point you have to ask yourself if it is worth the gamble of trying to save a couple bucks on a substitute product to clean your films with vs. potentially damaging your prints in the long term.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 31, 2004, 04:36 PM:
Brad, your not just talking a few bucks. The product you sell (FilmGuard) is very expensive over here. It works out at about £48 GBP a 900ml bottle which I think makes it the most expensive on the market. Obviously our distributor has to also make a profit. In terms of long term use with say WD40 I know that Keith Wilton has used it over the years so it will be worth me asking him to check films that he has used the stuff on and see how it has faired up. What started me on this track was not cost but the fact that WD has the same strange smell as Filmrenew which makes me think that the 2 items are related in terms of the oil thats in it. WD is obviously a lot cheaper and far more readily available which is a real plus point. The tests go on and we will see how it goes. I like the fact that the film after a week still has a nice even coating on it where as so many other products seem to go patchy. The pinch roller in my GS doesnt seem to be any worse after using this product than any other product I have tried.
Kev.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 31, 2004, 11:54 PM:
Is there no film cleaner product available in the UK that has a long track record of testing that is reasonably priced? Obviously once US manufactured items leave the country, it starts to get real expensive.
My only concern that I just wanted to make clear to the readers was that random chemicals which were not formulated for film cleaning such as WD40, or Armorall, or Raid bug spray, or whatever has not had long term testing on film and users could unbeknownst to them be destroying their films. I know Kodak has specifically named the product WD40 as a no-no because it leeches the dyes from the film over time.
I'm sure you can understand where I am coming from. Take for example a reader skimmes through this post and gets out of it that they can throw any ol' chemical on their films...but what if they turn around a few years later and find out that their films have been damaged by it??? Obviously it's a gamble each person has to weigh and make their own decision on.
Let's just please word the posts carefully so it is made clear that items like these have not had long term testing and using them are "at your own risk", then of course feel free to report your findings on it thus far. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
EDIT - I decided to do a quick search over on the Film-Tech Forums since I knew this had been discussed before over there. I suggest everyone click on this link and read about using WD-40 straight from John Pytlak (the Kodak man). His post is about 2/3 down the page.
[ November 01, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 01, 2004, 08:15 AM:
Thank you Brad. Your words of caution make a lot of sense, and everyone needs to heed them.
I certainly do not want to recommend that everyone go off and apply ArmorAll to their entire film collection- and I certainly hope that they do not. As you say so well, you dont know what will happen 5 or 10 years from now. But here is my experience, for what it is worth:
About a year ago I aquired 3 black and white features off ebay. These were acetate based prints, very nice quality, but were scratched and almost unprojectable because they were so dry and shrunk, chattering and jumping up and down on the screen. I thoughI had nothing to lose by trying something, and seeing and reading the ArmorAll directions while cleaning my car one day, I thought I might just try it on one roll of these films. Using the protectant wipes, I saw an immediate improvement in ease of projection, much quieter and much more steady. So I repeated the cleaning operations a few more times over a period of a couple of weeks, by which time the print had eventually settled down to a normal level of noise and steadiness in the projector. I also noticed that the film scratches were less noticeable, and the quality of the mag track sound was much better. In fact the first few rewinds thru the wipes produced lots of loose oxide crud on the cloth. I have concluded that the stripe gets cleaned and polished during this operation, thus the better sound. I also think that maybe the Armorall penetrates the film base, producing slight swelling, which offsets some of the shrinkage. It also seems to make the film a little more flexible and shiny after several applications.
So far, as I have said, I have not seen any adverse effects after 12 months. But so far, I have only used this product to "Rescue" prints which were otherwise very unsteady and chattery ,due to shrinkage or drying out. (None of the prints which I have owned myself are like that). I am sure that Filmguard or Filmrenew would provide similar beneficial effects on the film, but I do not like the exposure to the volatiles in these products.
I have not used this product(ArmorAll) on every film that I posess, and will only use it if necssary to rescue a print from the trash can.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on November 01, 2004, 08:40 AM:
Lads, another input from France:
I juste received an email from Mr Antoine Orsero, a very respected collector over here. He skimmed through this thread but, not being too confident with writing in English, he asked me to relay the following information to you:
Mr Orsero has been using, for the past 7 years, a silicone-based car care product from the brand "Abel Auto", apparently very similar to ArmorAll, with great success, without any glitch. However, he only uses it with extreme precaution on acetate prints that need to be saved from shrinkage.
I suppose that these products could be used wisely and lightly for cleaning/lubricating the projector's film path...
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 01, 2004, 04:13 PM:
Points noted Brad. The only two cleaners/lubes available here in the UK are Derann's Liquid Film Cleaner and CHC's Cresclean. I think Cresclean has changed in makeup recently as it now smells paraffin based and certainly doesnt work as well as it used unless it's used as a wet gate cleaner/lube. The Derann liquid seems to be mainly isoprop with a little silicon which really doesnt have enough silicon in it to hide scratches on older prints. It also evapourates very quickly in use.
There are some supplies of the old thermofilm film product but as far as I now its not being made now along with 2.22 which I think has all gone.
I have some Filmrenew which is very good and some Filmguard but as I said earlier they are expensive and film renew has to be bought direct from the US and I think, in rather large containers?
Thanks for the warnings though and they have been noted.
Kev.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 01, 2004, 06:37 PM:
Years ago, I tried a product which was sold by Derann called Renofilm.
It cleaned and lubricated. A little drop went along way.
Most notably, it smelled like moth balls or camphor.
At first, I thought this was strange, until a long time collector friend of mine
told me that very old ancient film prints did have that smell, especially
when they were stored in a can, which had a small sponge inside which was a placed as a wick to keep the films moist for long storage. I guess a similar concept to what is found in the Bonum spools boxes.
Nevertheless, the films treated with Renofilm went through the projector gate as if their was not any film passing through the machine.
Had anyone ever tried this product?
This is something which I used prior to understanding MSDS fact sheets.
Best,
Michael
P.S. Kev, I have to date about 500 posts to catch up to you! Hopefully I will be as lucky, if I don't drop from exhaustion. How do you do it? Cheers!
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 02, 2004, 07:57 AM:
I tried RenoFilm about 10 years ago when I couldn't get hold of Thermofilm. Because the container was rather large I poured some into a plastic holder. The plastic melted so God knows what damage it will do to a film over time.
The remaining RenoFilm went in File 13 i.e. the bin!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 03, 2004, 09:44 PM:
Well guy's, it's time for your's truly to eat humble pie. I got the following response from the ArmorAll Company:
Dear Mr. Adsett:
Thank you for contacting The Armor All Products Company.
The ARMOR ALL Protectant Wipes are water based silicone specifically
designed to protect and beautify polymeric materials such as rubber,
plastics, vinyl and automotive-grade finished leather. This product is
not recommended for lubricating film reel.
We will be happy to provide the material safety data sheet(s) you
requested. We will be sending this material by regular mail, so please
allow 7 to 10 working days. At this time, we send material safety data
sheets by regular mail only. I hope this information is helpful.
Again, thank you for contacting us.
David N. Mills
Product Specialist
004368166A
I guess Brad know's what he's talking about.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on November 04, 2004, 03:34 AM:
Paul,
Thank you for your initiative and help. Question answered. I need a bunch of stuff from Wittner, I guess I'll add a can of Film Renew to my order.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 04, 2004, 05:22 PM:
Paul
I assume the slight swelling is the water. As and when the film dries does this mean the lines will return?
Is there any long term implications for the water being put on the films?
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 04, 2004, 09:49 PM:
Tony,
I do not intend to interfere, but I have found water to be very damaging to film.
Last summer, I received a film which was delievered to me with a very stong mildew smell. Instead of using a Film Cleaner to remove the mildew odor, I aired the film out on my open air screened porch for several weeks. Selecting only days which were low in humidity, and making sure that the film was not in the direct path of sunlight, where it would bake and turn vinegar.
I worked this for several weeks, and the film was practically free of the odor. One night I did not realize that it was going to rain, and as I turned in to go to sleep, I hear a misting and blowing of the wind, and realized that the film was getting wet.
I rushed out, snapped up the film and began to pat the moiture off of the film with a dry cloth, rotating the cloth to absorb the wet areas.
Then slowly I unspooled the film between rewinds, and noticed that the film was beginning to stick together. Carefully, I would dry the film with a dry cloth tissue, and waited for each area to not feel sticky and to wind to the next area that was wet until the sticky areas were dry.
The areas that became wet did swell somewhat.
After intensive work of 800' of 16mm film, I believed that I saved the film, and I did not get to sleep until 1:45am during a work week. - What we will do for film!
I am curious if Paul's film will reveal scratches in the future.
Last but not least, never use a hair dryer to dry off films, Because the heat can turn the film vinegar, and vinegar syndrome can affect an entire collection to turn vinegar and useless.
Best,
Michael
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 05, 2004, 12:34 AM:
Michael,
Please Please Interfere all you can, that (in my opinion) is exactly what this forum should be about. I don't really mean interfere I mean contribute.
Not only is your story interesting (it brought a tear to my eye ) but I did not know about hair dryers.
Just wish some of the other "observers" of this forum would contribute more so that we newbies (yes OK verbose newbies given the number of posts ) keep on learning!
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 05, 2004, 03:09 AM:
There's nothing better than water to get rid of emulsion scratches. It won't get rid of thick green lines but light scratches usually disappear. A damp cloth and let the film run off; don't let the emulsion sides touch or they'll stick together. Hang it up to dry naturally.
For Michael, this process should also repair any damage done to your film caused by it being left out in the rain. I had to carry out the process on a 400ft reel that had water spashed all over it whilst it was still wound on the reel. You could hear it coming unstuck when projecting it and see all the black marks on the picture resulting from the emulsion sticking together. Treatment with a damp cloth cleared all the damage.
I generally finish the process off with a Thermofilm treatment just to ensure any dust and remaining muck is cleaned off.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 05, 2004, 08:35 AM:
Well we now know that ArmorAll is a water based silicone product, and that water is reportedly bad for film. Obviously it is the silicone which provides the lubricating effect and the water swells the film very slightly, offsetting any shrinkage, and diminishing some of the scratches.
Maybe the key here is how much water may be detrimental to the film. A situation where a film has water settling on it for a long period of time is probably totally different from what you get with the ArmorAll wipe applied during a high speed rewind, where the amount of fluid which gets on the film is pretty small.
I am not advocating that everybody go off and ArmorAll all their films. But I would be interested to see if anybody else feels that high speed rewinding thru ArmorAll wipes is beneficial to film handling during projection and reduction of scratches. So somebody else, give it a try, and let us know what you find.
As far as I am concerned, as I said, I have not seen any problems after about 1 year of useage, and I will continue to use this product on troublesome films which would otherwise be unprojectable.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 05, 2004, 10:22 PM:
John,
When using a damp cloth with water, is the cloth applied to both sides of the film, or just the base side. How long do you wait to air dry the film before applying the Thermofilm, and will this remove black scratches and keep the black scratches off of the film, or will they all return once the film dries again.
Last but not least does this proces, treat emulsion scratches the same way?
Paul,
Your project is worth a try with film that is not as treasured. What's there to loose?
Best,
Michael
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 06, 2004, 01:24 AM:
I just run the film through a damp cloth on both sides. Of course, the treatment only works to the emulsion side so you could just dampen the one side but there doesn't seem to be anything much to gain from that.
How long it depends to dry depends on the room temperature at the time. It's generally a quicker process on a warm day. Whatever I generally leave the film hanging (hardly touching anything) for at least half an hour. Any light emulsion side scratches should be removed.
Then comes the Thermofilm which has a light wax and therefore can hide light base side scratches.
Learned all this off Mr. Wilton which is one of the reasons just about all the super 8 screened at the BFCC's look in such good condition despite some being over 30 years old. The process (in a more technical fashion) was also detailed on the Kodak web page a couple of years ago when we had a bit of an argument on the old forum from some members refusing to believe this miracle cure for scratches. Some got quite upset but I can assure you it does really work. Just test it on a print you don't care for to get it right. And don't soak the film otherwise you can end up with water marks you need to polish out - a real pain.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 06, 2004, 09:05 AM:
Now for another science lesson ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The trick of re wetting film is a very old one. It will only partially hide emulsion scratches unless they are really fine ones and then in those cases they can be illiminated completely and permanently.
The best way to do this is to draw the film slowly through warm water at about 35 centigrade and allow it to dry using warm air prior to spooling up. This is exactly how your film is dried in a comercial processing lab.
Now what happens when you scratch the film surface. You basically cut a groove into the emulsions "non stress" gelatin coating which if viewed under amicroscope will be a groove with sharp edges.
The action of re wetting the film causes the gealtin to swell up, and by a substantial amount. This action causes the sharp edged groove to become more rounded which then leaves a groove which is now concave in shape and not square. On projection the scratch is more or less invisible depending on how bad it was in the first place. With extremely fine scratches the swelling of the gelatin can in fact marry the two edges of the scratch together and it will no longer be visible at all on subsequent projection.
Heat upto about 40 C will not harm your film in any way at all. Film is designed for processing at these temps. The drying cabinets in some photo processors can be upto about 60 C for fast drying.
If anyone is going to try this then can I advise on a few drops of washing up liquid in the water as this helps to dry the film without any drying marks. Fast drying is also esential to keep dust etc off the film during drying as it will embed itself in the emulsion and the only way to be rid of it again is to re wet once more. Comercial film processors have filters on the fan intakes to cut this problem down. In some older processing machines infra red heating is used for drying along with fans to circulate the air. At home I have indeed used a hair dryer to enable fast drying.
This does work well but as has been said earlier it will not cure deep emulsion scratches which look green on the screen as they are deep and have in fact removed some of the dye layers but it will help to make them look less harsh.
I have seen film in a photolab put back through the whole process (as it was easier to do that) which had got scratched prior to printing and this would eliminate most of the damage.
I have tried this like KW on super 8 and it can really make a print look like new.
Kev.
Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on November 06, 2004, 11:12 AM:
Brill Kev,
Learned something today.
How far away is the web site?
Chris.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 06, 2004, 02:38 PM:
Kev & John,
I must say that I am completely intrigued by the success which you have found in using water on film prints to remove scratches, as well as using a hair dryer.
My earlier anti-hair dryer comment, was based upon an experience with a 16mm film short which I received years ago that had some warp in the tail end of the film. It was so warped that it went out of focus. Thinking that heat restores memory to plastic, I wound it tight and placed a hair dryer to it. Well, it flattened the film to perfection and the picture in that area was as sharp as a tack, but it wreaked of vinegar smell. I suppose the film was degrading before my attempt.
But this could be for another thread on the forum. But getting back to what you had said earlier, are you using liquid hand soap mixed in with water to help the film dry faster? I'm thinking of what I could use here in the USA, that is to what you are using. We also have electric dishwasher detergent that claims not to leave streaks on glass and crystal ware.
Also if I were to try this with 800 feet to 1600 feet of 16mm film, how would you suggest that I run the cloth and dry the film so it will not stick on a take up reel?
Thanks for your help.
Best,
Michael
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on November 06, 2004, 02:38 PM:
A film laundrette! Now theirs a business opportunity
Craig
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 06, 2004, 02:41 PM:
Craig,
You are too funny!
That made me smile
Best,
Michael
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 06, 2004, 04:46 PM:
Yes Craig that made me laugh too.
Michael, What I have done in the past is to allow the film to come off it's supply reel and then soak say 3ft in warm water. As you pull it out of the water you then used tissues (not too fluffy) or cloth to remove the excess water. You can then use a hair drier to dry that section before spooling it back up on the tkae up spool. Using a pair of rewinds like the Elmo ones is a good idea because they can be kept at a good distance apart to allow you room to work.
What I will say is that I have never done a whole movie this way only sections of film whcih may have got a light scratch here and there. A whole reel though should be possible.
The type of soap I have used as been the liquid for washing dishes etc to allow the breakdown of surface tension so that you dont get water spots when the film dries. You used to be able to buy "wetting agents" for the final rinse when doing home processing. Another possibility might be a couple of drops of the rinse aid used in dishwashers as this does the same thing.
Kev.
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 06, 2004, 04:53 PM:
I've done plenty of complete 600ft reels and can't say that I've had a problem with dust getting stuck in the emulsion. But then I don't soak the film. I've unspooled whole reels (200 footers), thrown the whole lot in a basin of water and then hung it up to dry and there's been no perceptible difference in results apart from getting water marks on the film afterwards! So I just stick to a soft wetted cloth, then hang the film up to dry.
It's worth a try but I would recommend being careful with your first few attempts.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 06, 2004, 11:37 PM:
Kev & John,
This is wonderful news, but for how long does the film need remain wet before
drying?
Do you run it through quickly between the rewinds, or just dip-it quickly and then dry it off. And can you explain the technique as to avoid the spotting.
Best,
Michael
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 07, 2004, 08:54 AM:
I generally dampen about 50ft at a time and leave it hanging up for anything between 15 minutes to half an hour. If just a damp cloth has been used it is unusual to get any spotting visible on projection. Still, when the reel is complete a clean with a film cleaner should finish it off nicely.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 07, 2004, 12:04 PM:
I just sit the section in the warm water till the emulsion turns a slight milky colour which takes a couple of mins. Take it out then remove the excess water and dry it.
You will be amazed at the results and of course it permanent.
Kev.
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on November 07, 2004, 12:44 PM:
Kevin/John
I notice that you both mention leaving the film to
soak in water. Once the film is dry have either of you
noticed any sound loss to the films washed.
Also, are all striped films safe to do this too. I have had some trouble with stripe coming of later Derann prints and wonder would soaking the film do any damage to the adhesive holding the stripe to the film.
Tom
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 08, 2004, 01:51 PM:
From the Kodak Web Site
Film-Cleaning Checklist
Here are some things to remember when cleaning films:
Use only well-known, high-quality film-cleaning solutions. Do not use alcohol of any kind because some types can soften the emulsion, or the base, and can increase the risk of abrasion during the cleaning process. Alcohols are not good oil solvents because they can remove magnetic striping, are highly flammable, and can lead to moisture condensation.
On film with magnetic tracks, first check the cleaning solution on a short section of film. If a brown color appears on the cloth, stop! An approved film cleaner is suitable for use with most magnetic striping, provided contact is brief.
Use a soft, lintless cloth such as a deep-pile plush. Avoid using hardsurfaced textiles or exerting excessive pressure on the cleaning pad as these tend to abrade film and hold any ant in contact with the film surface. Also, do not use cloths from which dyes bleed. Fold all cut edges inside the pad to prevent depositing lint on the film.
Refold the cloth pad frequently so that a clean surface is always in contact with the film. Advance impregnated dry-tape webs frequently for the same reason.
When cleaning with cloth pads and solvent, wear protective gloves and make sure there is adequate ventilation in the work area.
If you need to clean a 35 mm print, be sure to relubricate it properly by edgewaxing, because cleaning solvents remove the lubricants along with the dirt. Make sure that the film-cleaning solvent is evaporated from the film surface before you wind the film onto the reel or core. Place some sort of lamp on the table so that it will reflect light from the film surface as you clean. This way, you can observe the solvent on the film and the point where it evaporates.
To speed cleaning, lengthen the film path between the cloth pad and the take-up reel. Use idler rollers near the ceiling or place the reels far apart. Remember, the faster the film is wound, the more frequently you will need to replace the cleaner on the cloth and rotate the pad. Never let the pad become so dry that wet cleaner is no longer seen on the film surface.
A cleaned print will remain that way only as long as the contributing factors that cause dirt problems are known and remedied-or prevented. To begin with, oil acts as a lubricant when applied to bearings and other mechanisms to reduce friction and wear. Otherwise, oil on film acts like a magnet, drawing dust, dirt, and gritty particles to the film surfaces and keeping them there. Oil can come from an over-oiled projector, worn bearings, or from inadequate or improper equipment cleaning. In every case, the oil finds its way to projector-component surfaces that come into contact with the film. Once on the film surface, oil continues to migrate and film mottle develops. Contact with dirty surfaces and airborne dust and dirt, with the help of static buildup, does the rest.
General Guidelines
Try to do the best you can to prevent dirt buildup in the work area. If cement splices are made, be sure the film particles from scraping are cleaned away from the film before it is wound up. Also keep the splicer and bench top clean. Dirt particles that look like large chunks of debris on the screen are almost microscopic in size when viewed on the film surface. You can't see most dirt particles on a bench top with the naked eye.
Not a Cure All Simple film cleaning does nothing to eliminate scratches and cinch marks because all such marks are actually forms of physical damage to the film surface. Therefore, preventative maintenance and cleanliness are the keys. Once the damage is done, efforts to recover a print can be very expensive and can produce results that are only marginally satisfactory. A film will look best to viewers if it has been properly cared for and has always been in a clean environment on carefully maintained equipment.
Lubrication
All motion-picture films destined for projection are required some level of lubrication. The lubricant incorporated in some 8 mm or 16 mm films may be sufficient, even after processing. Since all films may not be lubricated, it should be done to assure a smoother projection. Most laboratories do apply a lubricant when necessary. Caution: Solvent film cleaners or lubricants require adequate ventilation and avoidance of prolonged contact with skin. If these precautions cannot be met, employ a professional firm to clean and lubricate the films. Also, local municipal codes must be strictly adhered to in using and disposing of any solvents.
Theatrical 35 mm release prints require considerably higher levels of lubrication to provide trouble-free performance during projection nuns. Since the required amount of lubricant is excessive for overall application, it is applied to the perforated film edges only on the emulsion side. During windup, some of the lubricant transfers to the film edges on the support side. The edge-wax solution consists of 50 grams of paraffin wax dissolved into 1 1itre of inhibited 1.1.1 Trichloroethane and is usually applied by a special edge-waxing machine. For more information, refer to the SMPTE Recommended Practice, RP151-1989, Lubricatlon, Print.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on November 08, 2004, 02:51 PM:
EEE Hec, good old thermo film used to whip off the mag on waltons etc like no bodies business.
I`m pretty sure film renew did as well, I`not sure on film gaurd, its all a bloomin minefiled, what to clean me lovely 8 miilies with now!!!!!!!!!!
Best Mark.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 08, 2004, 03:10 PM:
I agree with you Mark. The more you read, the more contradictory and confusing it gets. Talk about a load of Black Magic. As far as Kodak's warning about brown residue formed by the cleaner removing the stripe, if you take just about any super 8 sound film that has not been cared for, and just wind it thru a dry cotton cloth, you will get a load of brown crud on the cloth. I think this is loose oxide and dirt, and needs to be got off the film anyway.
As far as I am concerned, I'm going to stay with what works for me, and the best and safest household product I have found so far is the ArmorAll wipes. I am definately going to stay very far away from any professional film cleaning solutions.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 08, 2004, 04:14 PM:
Paul,
Tried your "Armorall" product on some 16mm (sorry about the format)and I think the UK product hsa sat too long on the shelves of Halfords because they are not very moist. It did remove some grime but when I went back over the same film with Cresclean it took off a shed load of dirt. Will now try another reel using filmguard and see what is what.
This was a film that was suffering from considerable, well I am not sure how to describe it- twisting, warping or something so ....
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 14, 2004, 12:08 AM:
Kev, & John,
Have you tried the technique of wetting film to remove scratches
from color print stock as well?
Best,
Michael
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on November 14, 2004, 03:39 AM:
Can the water treatment be used on all stocks of film
and will there be any damage to soundtrack?
Tom
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 14, 2004, 05:32 AM:
Water can be used on all types of film. All of the processing solutions that were used initially are water based so the film is designed to stand up to a good soaking. In fact you probably wouldnt believe some of the chemicals that are involved during film processing. The mag stripe will not be affected by re wetting of the film. Providing the stripe is in place properly to start with there will be no problems. The stripe is cemented directly to the film base side of the film so the softening of the emulsion will not cause a problem.
I have re-wet many types fo film from std B/W to various makes of colour on both poly and acetate stocks.
Have no fear for your films. Dont use boiling water and dont leave the film soaking for hours on end. Just be sensible about it all.
Kev
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 14, 2004, 09:24 AM:
I received the MSDS sheet from ArmorAll. The stuff appears to be perfectly safe under normal usage conditions. Wash hands with soap and water after use, and use gloves if handling the product for prolonged periods. Non inflammable. Non carcinogenic. No medical conditions are known to be aggravated by exposure to the product.
Ingrediants are 30% to 40% silicone emulsion.( The rest is probably water, because the boiling point is noted to be 100C. )
Easily soluble in water.
So there we have it. The water content cleans the film and reduces the scratches, and the silicone content provides the lubricating effect. On the face of it, it appears that there is nothing in the ArmorAll that will damage the film.
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on November 14, 2004, 10:08 AM:
Hi Kevin
I'll try out on afew films next week and report back
Tom
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 15, 2004, 03:09 AM:
Tom, the only problem I've ever had with wetting a film goes back to when I was learning how to do this years ago and successfully getting the emulsion stuck together. That's why I hang a wetted film all over the living room so the emulsion sides can't touch anywhere.
Like Kevin, I've thrown complete reels in bowls of water and waited until the emulsion goes a creamy colour. Although, I never really got the hang of this and generally ended up with water marks occasionally. Therefore I just stick to the dampened soft cloth. Possibly now quite as effective but where the emulsion scratches aren't too deep it seems to do the trick.
I've never had a problem with sound stripe being affected.
With regards to Thermofilm: I've never had this take off more of the stripe than just running the film through a cloth. There's always a bit of brown left on the cloth regardless. I tend to think this is just muck as the recording itself doesn't appear to be affected.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 15, 2004, 02:56 PM:
John,
Any chance I could marry your wife?
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 15, 2004, 05:39 PM:
Tony,
Susie even has her own film collection!
Doug
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on November 18, 2004, 07:43 PM:
Sorry! But someone had to take this thread to 100 posts.
Craig
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on November 21, 2004, 10:18 AM:
Hello Everyone
Well I cleaned a couple of movies using the water treatment recommended by Kevin and John last week and can report it is a stupendous success.
A 16mm black & white sound newsreel that was badly scratched before came up like new. A lot of the minor scatches are now completely gone.
A 200ft super 8 colour sound cartoon of Hanna Barbera which was also marked came out great as well with a noticable improvement
in picture.
I used a damp lint cloth and wet, cleaned and dried approx 3ft at a time. I can tell you it was very time consuming and my hands and back ache Ouch!!. A lot of oxide came off with whatever dirt was on the film. Is this to be expected? I havent noticed any change in the sound of both movies.
I left to dry for a day and then cleaned with Thermofilm as directed and then left for another day before projecting.
Have anybody used the total immersion in water outlined by Kevin?
I reckon it would save a lot of time but am still a little apprehensive. Have any other collectors used this method.
Is it safe and how long time wise do you leave the film approximately?
Regards
Tom
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on November 21, 2004, 01:21 PM:
Tom,
This is great news. I too would like to try the total immersion process,
but I do not wish to deal with water spotting marks on the film.
Michael
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 21, 2004, 01:56 PM:
Leave the film for just a few minutes. It only has to be long enough to soften the emulsion. This you can normally see as the emusion does turn slightly milky looking when it has absorbed water. Just make sure that if you are doing a reel of film that you have the space to dry it etc. If you havent then do short sections which you can easily manage.
Kev
Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on November 21, 2004, 03:51 PM:
Kev,
How about hard water areas, in this case like myself would it be wise to use distilled or bottled water?
Chris.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 21, 2004, 04:50 PM:
This is where some form of wetting agent is a must. You could try a photo shop for some Final Rinse Aid such as Ilford sold or you could use a couple of drops of washing up liquid. Not so much that you get froth though you dont need to give your precious film a foam bath Make sure that the film is reasonably free of droplets before finally drying by wiping down with a lint free cloth etc.
Kev
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 22, 2004, 02:12 AM:
Alternatively Chris, just get yourself a Brita water filter. They're worthwhile in any case as you won't get any fur in your kettle with filtered water. Should make the wife happy and she won't suspect you've purchased it to aid cleaning your films.
Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on November 22, 2004, 12:27 PM:
Good idea John, but think she may suspect when i start hanging out to dry.
Chris.
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on November 23, 2004, 10:37 AM:
Hello
I will experiment with Domestic cold water on a short 200ft film tonight and report back.
I am going for two minute soak so have my egg timer, lint clothes and hair dryer at the ready.
Tom
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 27, 2004, 04:29 AM:
I am wondering if this method will help to restore warped film. If the emulsion takes up some moisture again it might help to flatten it out on drying.
I Have reel 1 from the King Kong feature which has been damaged by film cleaner and it make me wonder if this might be the answer.
I will let you know.
Kev.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 27, 2004, 04:54 AM:
Kev,
I have been experimenting since your article on soaking film We have a Bosch dishwasher that has a delicates wash and I have found that a 200ft extract will fit around the upper basket without the emulsion touching.
A 20 min wash on delicate using just Tesco dishwasher tablet had the most amazing results. The film dried without spotting and did not stick to anything.
I doubt it would work in the bottom basket as there is too much heat.
The film slipped through the projector afterwards and the picture was as clean as anything.
I don't recommend others try it except on a worthless piece of film.
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 27, 2004, 08:52 AM:
Keep us informed, Tony. I've bookmarked the dishwasher category on eBay just to get ready. I hear the Bauer dishwashers are much quieter.....
Doug
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 28, 2004, 05:35 AM:
BLANK by any chance Tony? You should have put that on here on April the first
Kev.
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on December 06, 2004, 04:55 AM:
Tony, how are you getting on with the Baby oil test?
Craig
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on December 06, 2004, 05:57 AM:
Craig,
Sorry for the delay in posting but just back from Casualty. Seems I got confused and applied WD40 to the wife.......
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 06, 2004, 07:21 AM:
Craig, make sure it's not just any old baby oil; has to be Johnsons. I've just been over to the local "Boots The Chemist" and cleared their shelves (they only had one left!). I'll be putting good ol' Johnsons to the test this evening.
The advantage with this stuff that there should be no way it can detrimentally affect the paste stripe. It's so soft and gentle it wouldn't hurt a baby's bottie.
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on December 06, 2004, 10:53 AM:
John,
I hate to correct you but I would avoid J's if I were you. I did some market research today and found that Sainsbury (who are on a BOGOF promotion) is the purest form. If you look at the J's ingredients you will see a number of chemicals are also included in their product so I am going to stick with Sainsbury,.
Just like Armorall, when I went to get some there was only 1 bottle left so I suspect there are more cine enthusiasts reading this thread that you or I realise.
Well, as a test I am taking 3 weeks off work over Xmas and immersing myself holding a reel of colour sound made up of polyester and acetate just to check that nothing comes off....
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 06, 2004, 02:07 PM:
Well I never knew there was anything better out there than Johnsons Tony. I'll call in at Sainsbury's on the way home and check it out.
If it's cheap enough I'd like to hook a six gallon drum up to the dishwasher and run it through that using your theory of the film on the top tray, not the bottom because it's too hot.
Now should I stick a 3 in 1 tablet in with it? Will the film reel be okay?
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on December 06, 2004, 03:00 PM:
I have done some tests after hearing about the baby oil and find that its best applied in the wetgate mode. A small drop goes a long way and I think from tests that it gives its best results if applied warm.
A warning though, if it is liberally applied the GS turns into an instant bubble making machine because the first sprocket wheel pushes out the bubbles which have formed in the sprocket holes.
Gives as good a result as WD40 does but does smell nicer.
Kev.
Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on December 06, 2004, 03:22 PM:
Kev
My friend Hans had a similar thing happen when he tried wet gating with Fairy Liquid, bubbles came out of every orifice on the GS 1200. I tried to convince him that it proboably wasn't a good idea but he was certain that he knew best. Turned out he was right because the film was squeaky clean after the first application and positively sparkled after the second.
I never thought Hans that Judicious...
Mike
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on December 06, 2004, 04:21 PM:
Mike,
But Hans probably knows my friend Thartdo
That's Thartdo Tishes
Justlubed up a 16mm with the Wilton oil and about to see if she maked the same noises as the wife.
Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on December 06, 2004, 04:35 PM:
Tony
Actually he has mentioned Thartdo Tishes, I think they both know Softas Yerfase.
Mike
Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on December 07, 2004, 07:16 AM:
Hello All
I have done a few experiments on and have made a few improvement and adjustments on the water treatment which I find makes it easier to handle. I have got hold of an empty plastic water cooler bottle. You know the type that dispenses water at work. Well, I sealed the end were the water comes out and then cut two holes approximately 3 inches across one at the top and one at the bottom of the bottle.
I then positioned the bottle on an old work bench in the garage making sure it doesn’t move around and filled it with water.
I use two rewind arms one unwinds and dunk the film into the water bottle the other to rewind onto a reel. I time the length of time the film is in the water with an egg timer at roughly 6-8 minutes.
This way I can process film in lengths of about 20-50 feet at a time. I find this method
more consistent, easier to do and less tiring. When I put the entire reel in it was too much to dry at one time and you could not get continuous results.
Some of the older films can be a bit dodgy to do. I found two or three of the Walton standard 8 and super single stripe releases that even a slight wetting removed a lot of oxide and that in some cases the stripe crumbled away completely. This was probe ably going to happen anyway so better out of my projector than in I say. The newer
Derann prints don’t seem to be a problem.
16mm cleans up the best as it is easier to handle and more robust and you can see the details more clearly.
I have to say as John recommends they need a good cleaning with film cleaner once they are dried to remove any water marks. You can not get the marks out any other way and if you rub too hard you damage the stripe.
I have noticed that the films I have done have improved so much they look like new. They are so much cleaner and scratch less. Even without the improvements in print its is great to think that all the dust and dirt is not going through our precious projectors
and damaging irreplaceable sound heads
Best
Tom
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on December 08, 2004, 02:21 PM:
Just posted about the WD40 on the efilm forum and boy they don't like the idea of it at all....nope not one little bit....
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on December 08, 2004, 04:34 PM:
Well it's quite clear that they have no sense of adventure. If it wanst for the generations before us that did lots of experimenting we wouldnt have the products etc we have today.
WD40, Johnsons Baby Oil etc If we dont try we will never know.
Kev
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on May 22, 2013, 10:48 PM:
Now I know this is a completely ancient thread, but it is the first I had heard of the 'warm water' treatment to get emulsion scratches out. I unfortunately am having to sell up all my gear and movies to pay medical bills, and I had one reel that has a deep green emulsion scratch in it, right down the middle. Does this technique reduce deep scratch much? I don't feel I can sell the film with the way it is at the moment.
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 24, 2013, 06:26 PM:
Pete, so sorry that you're in a bad way.
A green scratch means that the emulsion itself is damaged to the point that part of it is actually gone. The warm water treatment can help lighter ones, but not where a dye layer is missing. So sorry to have to tell you that, too.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2