8mm Forum: Tape Or Cement Splices

This is topic Tape Or Cement Splices 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=000450

Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on March 22, 2004, 03:09 AM:

Was just wondering what the consensus was on using cement or tape on splicing.
I use a CIR tape splicer; it is quick easy and gives me good splices, is there is anyone using cement, and why?

Chris. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 22, 2004, 09:19 AM:

I prefer to splice with cement wherever I can get away with it (as in acetete based film) because a well done cement splice is stronger and for some reason I can never be mid-blink when the tape splice Zig Zag passes through the gate. I realize nobody else in the room gives it a second thought, but it bothers me. (Maybe if it was somebody else's film, I wouldn't know there was a splice so I wouldn't look for it!)

I've found that tape splices don't hold up over the long haul. The adhesive gradually loses it's stickyness, and the splice spreads.

All that being said, the existing splicing cement doesn't work at all on Polyester stocks, so in those instances, it's either tape or forget about it!

Posted by Ronnie Coeuhant (Member # 143) on March 22, 2004, 10:05 AM:

A good cement splice is strong, almost invisible, and will run through the projector smooth. Good cement splicers include Hammann, Zeiss Ikon, and Bolex. The Hammann and Zeiss cuts the film instead of grinding it.

I bathe my films regularly with FilmRenew. Tape splices will not hold with this solution.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on March 22, 2004, 01:21 PM:

Ronnie.

Why do you bathe your films?

Tony

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 22, 2004, 02:13 PM:

Perhaps he doesn't like dirty movies!

Posted by Ronnie Coeuhant (Member # 143) on March 22, 2004, 05:24 PM:

I use FilmRenew sold by Urbanski Films. This is only for films that are brittle and showing signs of mildew or fungus growth. The film is immersed in the solution for 2 weeks in the metal can. Then I use my Elmo ST-180 with a film cleaner attachment to wipe the film clean and remove the excess solution.

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on March 22, 2004, 10:24 PM:

Chris, I don't mean to knock cement splices because i've never used them and maybe they're better, but i've been using ciro(2 frame)tape splices on my films since they were available around here; must be back in the late 1970's or early '80's(replacing the "Quik-Splice"(4 frame)tape splices already in place on my films to that point). When made well,they too are strong, hold up well, are hardly noticeable, and pass through the projectors I have used(Kodak, B&H, Chinon, and Elmo)quietly. I'm not just talking splicing 200 and 400 footers together and such...i'm talking MANY, MANY splices used to edit MANY, MANY scenes in super 8 features and shorts that I shot as far back as the early 1970's. AND...they're still just as good when I show the films today, AND...i've never had to bathe them in anything.... [Wink]

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on March 27, 2004, 09:28 AM:

I prefer cement splicing, if only because to me they are much more fun to make. Using a good B+H (later known as a Maier Handcock) splicer it is just so enjoyable to make a good splice. I too like to treat my films with FilmRenew, Vitafilm and other products. Cement splices are best for those film treatments. However, when you cannot use a cement splice due to polyester film or plastic leader, a good tape splicer works nicely too. For prints I like the metal Fuji splicer, for originals I prefer the Wurker for nearly invisible splices at edit points.

David M. Leugers

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2