8mm Forum: Cleaning lines on film?

This is topic Cleaning lines on film? 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=002949

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 31, 2007, 09:03 PM:

I have a very nice print of "Flying Tigers' (suprisingly sharp!), but it does have a number of lines, and of course, lines attract dust over time.

Now, while we can never get rid of the lines, we can "clean" the lines. I did this sucessfully once before on a print as an experiment, but I've forgotten what soap and what concentration of soap to water i used.

Hows about some help out there? I know it can be delicate, as if you have too much soap in the water, it can lift off the magnetic track, so I would appreciate any good help, as I know that this print can look much better.

Thanks ahead of time

OSI

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on August 01, 2007, 04:40 AM:

Are these 'lines' emulsion scratches Osi? If so, it's just water (i.e. run the film through a damp cloth) that is required.

For anyone else reading this that hasn't tried this in the past the film has to be hung up to dry before cleaning and re-spooling. Failure to do this results in the emulsion sticking to the base side of the film and it will be ruined.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 01, 2007, 08:54 AM:

Hi John,

If the scratches are
black scratches, is it possible to
handle the film by using the
wet cloth method?

In a previous post a couple of
years ago, I believe
their was a method to immerse
parts or segments of the film in a mild soapy dish
detergent and wait until the film appeared
milky and then remove it to dry. Once this was
complete, it was OK to proceed onto the next section?

I think that Kev, suggested this method?

Or is this used for something other than
which we are speaking?

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 01, 2007, 04:01 PM:

Michael that is correct.

If however the scratches are black they are base scratches and you will need a cleaner which leaves an oil on the surface to fill in the scratches.

Bring on the WD40 [Big Grin]

Kev.

[ August 02, 2007, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Kevin Faulkner ]

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on August 02, 2007, 03:45 AM:

Kev's not entirely serious about WD40 chaps but it does work (apparently!). Film Guard seems to be the most respected modern day film cleaner and preservative on the market today. This will cover light base scratches.

Personally I still use Thermofilm but you're unlikely to find it for sale anywhere nowadays.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 02, 2007, 10:53 AM:

If there are base scratches on
the film, then the water treatment
method must be used with
an oil treatment follow-up?

Or will the water treatment
remove or recondition the
film to hide the base scratches?

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on August 03, 2007, 03:41 AM:

Only works for minor emulsion scratches Michael. However, I always lubricate a water treated film with Thermofilm once it has finished the drying process just to get rid of any dust that will inevitably have landed on the film.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 03, 2007, 08:15 AM:

Base scratches will not be helped by the water treatment. That only works on Emulsion scratches. The water makes the Gelatin swell to help close the gap and at the same time it rounds the edges of the scratch. With the lack of hard edges the light doenst tend to scatter about so much within the scratch making it less obvious on projection.

The base scratch treated with a lubricant is simply just filled in with oil or the like and provided the oil and film base have the same refractive index the scratch will disappear.

Kev.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 03, 2007, 09:28 AM:

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the
extensive description
in the treatment and
restoration of scratched film.

As always it is very
helpful.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 03, 2007, 10:07 AM:

Yes, thanks for all the feedback concerning scratches! It should help immeasurably! (Though i doubt I'll use WD40!)

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 04, 2007, 04:29 PM:

Osi, why not it smells the same as film guard. KW has used it for years.

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on August 04, 2007, 05:58 PM:

Smells a lot more serious than filmgaurd. I tried it on some 16mm a few years ago in the garden on a still day and was ill for about a week. Also as we said who knows colour wise long term.
You Were JOKING kev?

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 04, 2007, 06:05 PM:

You mean like 2.22 which cause premature fade [Eek!]

Kev.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 04, 2007, 07:56 PM:

WD40 has been proven to leech the color dyes from film. Use at your own risk.

And for the umpteenth bazillionth time Kevin, no FilmGuard is not WD40. [Roll Eyes]

It doesn't smell the same and if you compare the MSDS sheets you will see WD40 has a high flash point (meaning it will ignite under high temperatures).

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 05, 2007, 05:23 AM:

I was joking guys....tongue in cheek etc. And sorry Brad it must be FilmRenew that it smells like.....get the 2 products mixed up. No offense meant.

While we are on the subject of WD40 lets put one thing straight. Craig Hamilton left four foot of super 8 film immersed in WD40 for just under a whole year. There was no dye leeching, it didn't attack the stripe and it consequently projected that loop faultlessly and the film looked perfect.

As Brad says "Yes use at your own risk"!

One of the problems we have here in the UK is that the 2 best products are made and sold in the US but cost of shipping to the UK and now the restriction on shipping these products out of the US means its difficult for us to get our hands on and use.

One source of FilmGuard in the UK charges very high prices for it and will he be able to get some more.
Also what tests have been done with these products on their Archival properties as this is what happened with 2.22. Great cleaner but caused long term fade only apparent after many years?

For me I need a good cleaner which I know wont cause long term fade.

Sorry to ask that question Brad but I would be interested to know the answer.

I had many films in my collection which I had treated with 2.22 and most of those faded quicker than non treated films and this even happened on Fuji stock (supposedly non fade) which really surprised me. I know other collectors which have noted exactly the same thing.

I know we have touched on all this before but some answers would be great as this is an area I'm particularly sensitive about as I have lost a lot of non replaceable film titles.

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 05, 2007, 09:29 PM:

I'm concerned as well,as I am just about out of ECCO 1500 anti static film cleaner. I have heard a lot of good about "Film-Guard", but before I store up on it, has anyone seen any long term damage to film by using this product, (color loss, film becoming brittle?)

All the best!!

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on August 05, 2007, 10:29 PM:

I have been using Filmguard for about a year with excellent results. I have cleaned tons of film and still have not used the whole bottle. It cost anywhere from $30 to $40 dollars a bottle in the US plus shipping.

In the post link below Brad says it's been used in theatres for 20 years.

" How Long Has Filmfuard Been In Use?"
http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002456

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on August 06, 2007, 03:31 AM:

I'm another collector who has noticed the apparent rapid fading to 2.22 treated films. It could be coincidence but is certainly more noticeable on the titles I treated with this stuff than any others in my collection.

I still have a bottle of 2.22 if anyone wants to make me an offer... thought not!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 06, 2007, 03:35 AM:

NO THANKS John!

There's a number of products on the market and yes they may have been in use in theaters for 20 yrs or more but we have to remember as collectors that most of those prints will do their run on the circuit and then end up bandsawed or the like.

I want to be able to use a product on my films now and know that it wont be causing fade on my films in twenty years time like has happened with 2.22.

Thats my concern with these products. I have used FilmGuard and FilmRenew as a general cleaner/lubriant and both are excellent but has any long term Archival tests been carried out with them. This also applies to products such as Cresclean and Derann's LFC.

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on August 06, 2007, 04:32 AM:

Its definate on the 2.22 fade as you ofetn get films and the owner has written on treated with 2.22 and 90%+ of the time they are worse than similar uncoated prints.
Regarding filmgaurd, although nothing is certain in any sphere for me the fact that its to my mind just generally less toxic and more user friendly and the kinder user option will probaly reflect on how it treats films in the long term if you will, so kinder on them too.
On 20 odd years etc I think if you treat a film you buy yourself and get 20 years out of the print your not doing too bad whatever, persoanlly I don`t think its going to be an issue for myself, ie 20 years yet to run, no chance.
All the products have various merits but for me there is only one I would use and its got nothing to do with Brad, its Filmgaurd all the way.
best Mark.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 07, 2007, 10:55 PM:

Kevin, I still have the original films that were treated with FilmGuard 20 years ago. I would get two identical new copies of trailers and clean one with FilmGuard and leave the other one totally untouched. Today, the FilmGuarded prints still run like new, but the ones left untouched are extremely brittle, have poor registration and are generally warped or buckled in some manner. Even archives use it on their prints as well as nitrate! You would think that might be a bad idea, but it isn't as it makes the film run much smoother and that means less of a chance of something jamming and a fire initiated. There are also archives that use FilmGuard in reprinting old footage, sometimes being scanned one frame at a time. So to answer your archival question, yes I think it is pretty safe. It is also not haz mat, so it can be shipped via air freight.

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on August 08, 2007, 07:27 AM:

Hi ,

Changing the subject slightly. Can I coat a film with Filmguard which has previously been done with Cresclean.

Since buying some Filmguard, ive preferred that.

So back to the question, Can I Filmguard a film over cresclean or do I need to remove all the Cresclean first?

Graham S

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 10, 2007, 07:35 PM:

Brad, that's just the info we needed [Smile]

Blimey is there still nitrate stock in existance [Eek!]

Kev.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on August 11, 2007, 07:49 AM:

Just a random thought, if the combination of a soapy water and filmguard will aid somewhat in emulsion perhaps, then could this same be a probable start to solving VS? - Shorty

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 11, 2007, 09:25 AM:

I did not want to
go so way off topic
regarding Nitrate and
vinegar,so I posted
a under a new topic
under the 8mm forum.

I hope that it will be
in the proper category.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 11, 2007, 10:12 AM:

I have one nitrate print of "Birth of a Nation".

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 11, 2007, 10:51 AM:

Birth of a Nation at home
in 35mm?

All 8mm and 16mm film is on safety stock.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 11, 2007, 05:09 PM:

I take it your joking Osi? [Eek!]

Kev.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on August 12, 2007, 10:08 AM:

Just looking on ebay and saw this.......quite a strong opinion on Filmguard. Any views?

Ebay Item

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 12, 2007, 01:51 PM:

Tony, that was written by "Dr. Film" (aka Dave Harris). He is quite angry at me for publicly pointing out a scam he was pulling on his members a few years ago. In retaliation, he deleted the raving reviews of FilmGuard that was on his website and posted "Dr. Film's" review which couldn't be further from the truth. It quite literally happened within a week of my pointing out how he was screwing over his members.

I actually bought a Chaplin print from him a few years back. For someone calling themself "Dr. Film", I would like to see the college diploma because he rated the film is in good condition, yet it is by leaps and bounds the most beat up scratchy and splicy junk print I have ever seen.

Since his website gets virtually zero traffic, it's not even worth my hassle to bother with his childish nonsense. He just never could get it through his head that running a collector's website isn't about making money, because he kept trying over the years to charge his members "mandatory donation" fees and starting up "film auction" sections and threatening me with offering free manual downloads because he was trying to profit from them (you can't legally profit from someone else's content) and so forth. Whatever. He seems to be drifting away into a forgotten section of the internet these days. That ebay user simply pulled that text as a means to try and boost his auction sales since filmrenew is haz mat and difficult to get in the UK.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 12, 2007, 03:57 PM:

I have never heard of this seller before. Wonder how he is managing to get his hands on Filmrenew.

It's unfortunate that he has to be so openly scathing about Filmguard. For that, I wouldn't buy from him.

To be quite honest there are other cleaners I wouldnt use on my films and I would think could cause premature fade Guard and Renew are not them.

Kev.

Posted by Martyn Stevens (Member # 861) on August 12, 2007, 05:07 PM:

And one gets this Film Guard where, please?
I have used various stuff for years, including much 2.22 and Thermofilm. Only used the 2,22 on 9.5, ie B/W, and I think it's done a good job of preserving prints.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 12, 2007, 05:47 PM:

Martyn, Try Foster Films. He stocks it but its a bit pricey.

http://www.fosterfilms.co.uk/accessories.htm

Kev.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 12, 2007, 06:35 PM:

I don't know the specifics, but the jest of it is that FilmRenew used to be able to be exported until fairly recently when the laws tightened down and it no longer could ship without haz mat. Larry Urbanski is the manufacturer of that product, so he could fill you in. I would assume that seller had some sitting around and when he heard it wasn't obtainable in the UK anymore, he probably figured he could "clean up" on ebay.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 12, 2007, 08:29 PM:

Kevin,

I'm fairly sure that it is nitrate. Well, maybe not. I do know that my standard 8mm print of birth of a nation has vinegar syndrome and a slight warping to the film.

I have heard that "vinegar syndrome" can be caused by old magnetic tracks, OR, the glue for the tracks slowly breaking down.

I can varify that my "Birth", while vinegar smelling, is truly the sharpest print I have ever seen of this title. I saw a print of this on DVD, taken from "the best negatives available" (highly over-used phrase). I don't know as to whether they used 16 or 35MM, but my print on Standard 8mm is stunning. It has little surface wear as well, (on the original negative used).

The only sad thing is that it does have a magnetic soundtrack, but I have never been able to play it. A shame, as I have heard that it's supposed to be a commentary by someone who worked on the film, (that was stated by the person who sold me it.)

I don't know if this is on every print of this film, but it first has a "copyright" title saying that "every official D.W. Griffith film has this title" (paraphrased), and the second
title card is a statement against censorship. ("A Plea For The Art Of Motion Pictures"), before then finally getting to the main titles.

Another thing I found quite striking about the print was that it has perfect blacks, as well as the full spectrum of contrast, lovely grays. I have never seen such great blacks on any print, not even a Blackhawk.

I think it comes from at least the mid to late sixties. I mean, it at least has to have been from the magnetic sound age,
OR striped later and soundtrack added.

At any rate, as I said, lovely print! Just stinky.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 12, 2007, 11:56 PM:

Osi,

Although I have never seen
this feature on 8mm,
your print of Birth of a Nation
seems to be inline with some
8mm prints that used lavender
materials to reproduce the best
quality on 8mm.

Blackhawk always searched to
provide quality with only
the best materials available.

I have seen 16mm prints many years ago,
and some parts of the film have better
quality than other parts.

Incidentally, the last hurrah for
16mm Blackhawk prints ends this Wednesday.

If there is anything that you wish to have
from the existing Blackhawk catalog, all
orders must be received by August 15.
Contact Ray Healy at:
heals(at sign)warwick(dot)net

Posted by Martyn Stevens (Member # 861) on August 13, 2007, 08:48 AM:

On the subject of cleaning, I have a lot of 9.5 and 17.5 and it's noticeably far dirtier than other gauges and it seems a shame to use high-grade expensive stuff when a second pass is going to be needed anyway. Has anyone knowledge or experience of using Perklone - commercial dry-cleaning fluid - for this?

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on August 13, 2007, 10:08 AM:

Hi Martyn Filmgaurd isn`t cheap in the UK but a 2 pint odd bottle will last you for absolutely ages, it goes for miles and is by far the best thing on older dry stock, well I think so.Certainly for lubing them to run better.
Beware that some chemicals and even some more solvent based film cleaners can actually cause warp quite badly on dry older films so I wouldn`t mess about for the sake of a few bob when something like filmgaurd lasts so well anyway especially on your 17.5 ones. Also personally I wouldn`t want to mix chemicals so soon on a film with two different treatments, who knows!!!! etc.
Just my thinkings.
Best Mark.
PS also when running the film through some cloth between your fingers with thinner cleaners or chemicals it is far easier to cause scratches if a little too much pressure is aplied if the cleaner is not so greasy. I`ve done that myself with filmrenew even when rushing because of the fumes.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 13, 2007, 10:47 AM:

Micheal,

I can verify,
and completely ...
Identify,

Blackhawk,
it is not,
but I fear,
vinegar
shot rot

and ...

the warping,
contorting
and perhaps,
distorting ...

images.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 13, 2007, 03:06 PM:

Osi,

I do not doubt your expertise.
If it is nitrate then I have leaned
something new.

Some Blackhawk titles that I own have a
"nitrate appearance", that probably have been taken from
"lavender"materials which give the results of a
print down with stunning quality.

Print down films are taken from the original
camera negative to manufacture a sparkling film print.

This makes your print a winner,and at least
the better and best of the companies similar to as Blackhawk Films that I had seen.
Although I have not seen all prints of this title because of it being a long feature when projected at silent speed.

It is worth trying to use either the Film renew or
Vitafilm products to arrest the "vinegar" before
it becomes worse. To achieve these results
some people prefer Vita film after soaking
a print for six months.

Vita film is expensive, but I know that
you should be able to get the curl out
of the film print when it is soaked in Film renew,
and then back wound against the curl or warp.

I have found that using steel reels that are not
warped and used on rewinds worked the best,
and without placing a strain on the projector.

There you can control the tension
on the film and lay it as flat as possible without
it becoming too tight on the reel.

I too have found that a mag stripe has
the potential to gas out to a vinegar scent,
because some of my home movies have this problem.

When looking at the side of the film reel,
if the print appears spoked then
the film is buckling and breaking down
in the vinegar process, and hopefully this is not the case in
your film print.

This is worth salvaging due to
the stunning sparkling quality, so that you may
be able to enjoy the film completely.

Vitafilm page

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 13, 2007, 08:56 PM:

I agree with you Micheal about this being a stunner and worth keeping. The vinegar smell isn't that strong at all, since I have left the film largely open to fresh air.

What do you mean by "Sproked" (or is it "stoked"?) in your last post.

It does have warping, but not much and it plays well enough through my silent standard 8mm projector. I really wish I knew how to post pictures, as I'd love to show you the look of this film.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 14, 2007, 12:09 AM:

Osi,

Spoked is a term as if a wheel has spokes,
and the film does not lay completely flat on the
reel.

It takes on a Octagonal shape on the reel.

It is difficult to notice in the picture but the
circumference of the film does not follow a round
curve and it is flat in parts.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 14, 2007, 02:26 AM:

Guys, there is NOTHING that will cure VS. The current VitaFilm product is NOT the original mix despite it's advertising. If it was, then it would be haz mat way above and beyond FilmRenew's rating because many, many years ago I used to use it and that shit was so strong I would get migraine headaches and would usually experience nose bleeds while using it, despite very good ventilation. Check the msds sheets.

On the good side it would appear that most of the cleaners on the market DO slow VS down. That goes for FilmGuard, Film Renew as well as at least in theory VitaFilm. I can attest to FG, as I've done my own testing as well as received countless happy emails in this regards. I've also read plenty of positive reports on FR online. VF is the only one that doesn't really have much backing other than the manufacturer. Regardless I've no doubt it helps. Leaving a film dry definitely appears to make vs worse.

Whatever you end up doing, odds are you are only helping a vs film. Do bear in mind you are NOT stopping or reversing the vs, just slowing it down and masking the odor.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on August 14, 2007, 03:25 AM:

I am always amazed anyone would keep a vinegar film even in the early stages. Open the bin and off you go for the odd times I had one.
1 std 8 and and 2 16mms so far I think and one possible but that was maybe the fim type smell agfa.
Thank goodness for Polyester stock.
Best Mark.
PS strange that soaking a VS film in something completely alkaline doesn`t work!!!!

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on August 14, 2007, 07:19 AM:

Me too. Unless its a very very rare print, I also would just bin it. As Brad says, theres no cure, and most people have more films than they have space for so just bin it!

Graham S

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 14, 2007, 11:35 AM:

Osi, this might not be VS. The last bath in a Black and White film process before the final wash and dry is a Fixer. These fixers smell very strong of acetic acid and its possible for that smell to linger on the film for many years especially if the film is in an air tight container and had not had a thorough wash before drying.

If it's VS the film will also start to break down. It will warp, feel greasy and eventually go sticky and the smell will increase.

For now I would keep the film away from others and allow it to breath (open the can) and see if the smell gets worse or there are any other side effects.

Once open, if the smell lessens its probably not VS.

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 14, 2007, 04:24 PM:

I think your right Kevin, as the vinegar smell lessoned dramatically when I left the print out in open air.

The print, while it has a little warping, still plays just fine thru the projector. I'm inclined to agree that it's some kind of last step chemical on the film.

and I still want to hear the soundtrack!

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on August 15, 2007, 12:49 AM:

Sounds like a dangerous combination to me; Birth of A Nation on nitrate off gassing in in the can. [Eek!]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2