8mm Forum: Am i doing this wrong?

This is topic Am i doing this wrong? 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=010107

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 23, 2015, 03:38 PM:

Well, i think i may have been cleaning incorrectly.
Previous to using Filmgaurd we always used the Derann film cleaner and prior to that 222.
I have been using FG now for around 5-6 years and use the old method of clean 100% white cotton handkerchief wrapped around the fingers and wind the film from reel to reel on Elmo rewind arms. Simple enough. My problem is simply this, i have noticed a little more wow and flutter on my Elmo 1200HD and i clean and service it more than often. I never had this problem before FG. I always check my films prior to viewing and although i do understand FG can be over applied my movies do seem to in need of another clean after a year or so. I took these images of a print i was going to run tonight prior to putting it through the Elmo, this is from a previous clean, my question,(and i think the answer may be yes), is this,
Does this look like an over use of film guard as it appears to be flooded/pooled.
How should i overcome this as it is important for any projector (as well as the film itself) to have films properly cleaned and lubricated. This stuff must effect all the rollers and guides etc. (the images are not great but i think there clear enough.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 23, 2015, 05:21 PM:

When I put Filmguard, the beginning of the film (and part of reputting FG on the cloth) looks also more wet (more or less like on your picture). I'm curious to read what the advises will be.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on July 23, 2015, 06:29 PM:

There should only be more wow and flutter if the FG is causing slippage somewhere. Which perhaps means more wow & flutter would be an eventual reality even without FG? If anything, the sound should be smoother due to reduced friction.

As far as whether this is too much or not, I rather suspect so but can't think of any reason it's harmful. To have a microscopic layer applied to a release print running several times per day is different than storing for months and still expecting some lube left.

Brad!!!?

Posted by Roy Neil (Member # 913) on July 23, 2015, 06:29 PM:

Film-O-Clean to the rescue ...

Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on July 23, 2015, 08:48 PM:

This is simply just too much FilmGuard. Get the clean lint-free cloth just dry on its own and go through the same way folded over between the fingers and clean some off. If you can see the FilmGuard, it's too much! This print is flooded.

To apply use the spray setting on the bottle and just damp the cloth, the cloth shouldn't be dipped in the solution. Just spray a little on both sides of a 3-4 inch piece of linen. I use a brand new white cotton pillowcase or similar and cut it up. Barely damp and change position every 50-80 feet. Job's a good'un...

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 24, 2015, 02:26 AM:

As Steven points out Tom, use only very sparingly by spraying one or two small shots onto a lint free cloth.

Besides its excellent cleaning qualities and an ability to fill in base scratches on film like no other,Filmguard is an extremely effective lubricant it has to be said.
On some projectors and editors it is a nightmare if over applied I have found. Equally it can be just as bad by not being over applied but just by the fact that too many films have run through a machine all of which have been treated with filmguard.
It is the gradual build up on the capstan roller that causes the issue with wow and flutter.

My Goko RM8008 which relies solely on just the capstan to drive the film through to the take up reel and is totally sprocketless, absolutely hates the stuff! One fraction too much and the film grinds to a complete halt!

Machines with dancer mechanisms and therefore a floating roller as well as a tiny capstan roller WILL and DO suffer the most in the wow and flutter department.
They are not great to begin with but given how slippy Filmguard actually is, obviously it only amplifies the issue.

Ironically machines like the capstan driven Beaulieu with its very large capstan roller are never affected by Filmguard and it works only to be advantageous in that it drastically reduces the running noise of the film travelling through the projector.

Equally, I have never known my Eumig 938 or my Bauer machines be affected in any way by the use of filmguard no matter how much the rubber capstan roller glistens.

To conclude, some machines are completely unaffected by Filmguard and it therefore becomes the finest film cleaner you can use,however some machines suffer ill effects from it (especially sprocketless editors) and as such maybe a less lubricating film cleaner would be preferable for those machines.

Incidentally, I used to use Derann film cleaner and whilst it is very good at actually cleaning film, it is also very aggressive towards the stripe and on pasted striped film, can in some cases,even lift the stripe away from the film base.

Also it really isn't much of a lubricant,so as such I only ever use the bottles of Derann film cleaner that I have left now on optical sound prints where it can do no damage to film as it has no stripe.

Also because they're optical prints,I am forced to view them on my last remaining ST1200 which much prefers the fact that the Derann cleaner isn't much of a lubricant for the reasons stated earlier.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 24, 2015, 04:01 AM:

That'a very interesting message, Andrew. Thanks for sharing these informations with us.

Posted by Steve Carter (Member # 4821) on July 24, 2015, 04:42 AM:

I only use a silicone and wax polish mix, it cleans the film, I had a badly scratched and dirty standard 8 film,(I got from E-bay as a test film) the dirt that was removed was more than I could have imagined, plus the scratches were then minimal, the film also ran smoothly. I clean my projectors with the same polish...

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 24, 2015, 06:43 AM:

OK, i think i just need to remove a little, i may have been over doing it by the looks of it. This weekend will see a major clean up of the Elmo and also time for a little oil in the right places. It is used most evening even if just for a couple of shorts. [Wink]

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on July 24, 2015, 05:07 PM:

I always used 2.22 and used to over wet it to make sure the sprocket were covered, as it was claimed by the manufacturers to prevent them from wearing. I had a problem with 1 reel of 2 different 16mm features, thought the films was at fault; the sellers had viewed them without problem: after several months I ran the films again and they were perfect, because the 2.22 had had time to evaporate.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on July 25, 2015, 02:26 AM:

Hi Tom. I've been using Filmguard for over 10 years now and looking at your pictures, I agree with Steve and Andrew's comments and think there is too much on there.

I've found that even a single drop onto a white cotton hankerchief is good for treating around 100ft of super 8, even more.

I then do a reverse clean with a dry hankerchief as well, to smooth out application and to remove any excess (yep, excess!)

When done, you can't actually see any evidence of a coating, but the results are still obvious upon projection, with noisey prints becoming quieter and prints with weave becoming steadier.

So I'd maybe give those prints a couple of dry cleans at least to remove the excess. Certainly, it won't have done any harm.

My own ST1200HD is particularly fussy when it comes to wow and I reckon that that amount of Filmguard will definitely produce some slippage at the capstan and produce more wow.

I'm sure removing the excess Filmguard and a path clean, especially the capstan and pressure roller will do the trick.

Let us know how you get on.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 25, 2015, 02:27 AM:

That's what I like,d about 222. FG doesn't evaporate so although. It's. A good. Product. I do wonder if over time being wet dust actually. Sticks to the film???
Only downside of 222 was that the fumes were lethal

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 25, 2015, 03:29 AM:

I haven't found this to be the case Tom if your films are stored correctly in decent library cases.

You're right of course Tom, in that FG never truly evaporates, but I haven't found it to act like a magnet to dust, so long as the film is returned to its box immediately after screening and rewinding of course.

Btw Robs advice earlier is, as ever, spot on Tom!

Also thanks to Dominique for his comments and only happy to share all of my experiences..for better and sometimes for worse.

I like to read those of others on here, it's how we all learn what is best for our particular machines and needs.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 25, 2015, 04:01 AM:

True Andrew, I do always keep them firmly in there boxes, I also prefer the hard plastic cases wherever I can get them.
Thank you to all on here for the advice,
Rob, I will do the reverse clean with cotton cloth.
Oddly enough I always use to do this but last time i mentioned it on here someone did say "are you not removing it by doing this", but of course all your doing is removing the excess so this is what I shall be going back to doing. [Wink]

I have a lot of work ahead of me as with hundreds of feel, yayy I get to watch them all again. Oh, I shall need another projector and I know which one I'm going to get [Wink]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 25, 2015, 04:26 AM:

Apart from looking unsightly on the reel, it will have absolutely no adverse affect when projecting on your proposed new machine,so this also may in turn save you some time Tom in drying off all of your magnetic films that are coated in FG if they are in future kept away from your ST's.

In any case I would simply just do a front to back rewind and dry each one as and when you come to screening them as it also won't have any adverse effect by leaving your films coated in the manner they are during storage.

This hopefully will help save you some immediate valuable weekend time to spend on more enjoyable causes like watching a few of your gems perhaps? [Wink]

Posted by Steve Carter (Member # 4821) on August 13, 2015, 04:40 AM:

I received a Walton print from an E-bay purchase it had three very bad cement splices one after the other, and slight shrinkage,(must have been burns) it would not run, I thought I'm going to lose a section of this film. I then treated that section with extra silicone/wax polish which I treat my films with, hey presto! the film ran smooth and did not lose it's loop. This polish really is a film saver and it's cheap...

Posted by James Wilson (Member # 4620) on August 13, 2015, 05:39 AM:

I keep recommending Cresclean, you won`t go wrong with this,
here`s the link www.classichomecinema.co.uk/
go to film equipment, you`ll find Cresclean at bottom of the page.

Posted by Phil Slater (Member # 2388) on August 13, 2015, 06:11 AM:

One thing to bare in mind when using film guard, is that it will soften tape splices if too much is applied and not wiped off. I found this out to my cost when giving a show. I had applied too much over the splices and they nearly all came apart.

Posted by Phil Slater (Member # 2388) on August 13, 2015, 06:12 AM:

One thing to bare in mind when using film guard, is that it will soften tape splices if too much is applied and not wiped off. I found this out to my cost when giving a show. I had applied too much over the splices and they nearly all came apart.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on August 13, 2015, 08:51 AM:

I have found that both my Elmo GS1200'S are fussy about the friction properties of the projected film. I use Armorall wipes to lubricate my films and most of the time it does a great job. But on some occasions the newly lubricated films will produce WOW on my Elmo's. The same films will be totally free of WOW on any of my Eumig machines. I have concluded that the design of the sound capstan and roller on the GS1200 is marginal in terms of its clamping of the film, and the tension variation of the take up reel is actually inducing film slippage at the sound capstan/roller. You can prove this by holding the take up reel and letting the film run out freely from the back of the machine - all WOW will be gone. Eumig machines have much bigger capstans and rollers, with greater clamping force, and never produce WOW.

Posted by Steve Carter (Member # 4821) on August 13, 2015, 09:07 AM:

The DCT has a large capstan pinch roller and is behind the sound heads just before the shute to the take-up cog, it never produces wow & flutter even on a well lubed film...

Capstan just showing at bottom right...

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on August 13, 2015, 09:56 AM:

Hello Paul

Have you found any stickyness to the film emulsion when using Armourall wipes? My concern would be they may soften the emulsion as I believe they are water based?

Kevin

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on August 13, 2015, 03:04 PM:

I myself have found a little stickiness to a couple of films when cleaning, what is this?

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on August 13, 2015, 03:51 PM:

Too much cleaner Tom. You need to remove surplus with white cotton cloth. Did you use the infamous Derann home brew by any chance on film? It was much denser than thermofilm or film renew and could cause sound damage.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on August 13, 2015, 03:57 PM:

Thanks Mike, no i have only used filmgaurd for some years now, what i did tonight prior to watching last train from gunhill was to clean each spool then upon rewind i use a clean cotton handkerchief and basically let it run through dry but not putting any pressure on the film if you see what i mean? I was surprised how much excess came off but the film was still clearly treated.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on August 13, 2015, 04:15 PM:

Hi Tom

Remember being over zealous with the film cleaner particularly if I knew it had scratches so recognised the images. You got away with it with Thermofilm as it evaporated. Other cleaners tended to stay with film. As you say it is amazing how much gunch comes off with a dry cotton handkerchief. Your wow problem should be resolved. You might want to give your projector path a light clean with cotton bud dipped in alcohol. Do you ever demagnetise your sound heads?

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on August 13, 2015, 04:18 PM:

if im honest i have never ever demagnetised my sound heads?

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on August 13, 2015, 04:35 PM:

You are not alone I have only met two other collectors who ever said they regularly demagnetised their sound heads. One was a sound buff and I remember him quoting it improved your sound quality by 30%. I bought one from Derann for around £5-£7 mark. From memory it was electrical you plugged it ran it about a inch away from the soundhead. You don't touch it with the demagnetiser. You could feel a magnetic pull with each pass which reduced in feel. I think it did improve the sound reproduction when using projector on its own less obvious if you had an amplifier and speakers attached. I do remember one of it selling points was to reduce wow.

This looks like what I used on eBay except mine had a plug http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Analogue-Studio-Tape-Head-Demagnetiser-/291499183790?hash=item43deb48eae

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2