8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » 8mm Forum   » FilmGuard to protect S.8 film (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: FilmGuard to protect S.8 film
Luciano Duca
Junior
Posts: 5
From: Rome, Italy
Registered: Aug 2013


 - posted August 20, 2013 01:44 PM      Profile for Luciano Duca   Email Luciano Duca   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi to all.

I recently "discovered" the FilmGuard, so I wanted to get some information from those who have experience with this product.

For example, I read that the FilmGuard has these properties: form a slick protective coating on both sides of the film; Wet gate projection qualities (FilmGuarded prints will look as clean as digital video, even after hundreds of runs); a thin coating is created on both sides of the film (thus, the film is in a way "submerged" in liquid and will project to the screen with true "wet gate" qualities).

Now, my question is this:
I'm going to use the FG, using cleaning device Film-O-Clean, mainly for cleaning and protection of my films, and not during the projection (my S.8 projector is not adaptable to the Film-O-Clean).

I have some doubt especially on these 3 point:

1) All the features I mentioned above regarding the application of FG on the film, are exclusively refer during projection of the film, or these properties will remain fully even on films treated with FG and then archived for future use?

That is, if today I clean a S.8 film with the FG and then I put it in the archive, and after a year I project it, I will always have the effect of a projection "wet gate quality", or the protective effect of FG will be gone with the time?

I am particularly interested in the property to have a wet gate projection quality, because I would like to treat all my S.8 films with the FG and then project them with my projector (which can not mount the Film-O-Clean) and also send them to a lab to make them scan and burn to DVD, so I would have a typical video image quality, clean, without vision of scratches and dirt ...

2) To have an optimal degree of protection on the film, how many times should I clean the film with FG?

3) After how much time wears off the protective effect of FG on the film?

Thanks. [I][/I]

 |  IP: Logged

Douglas Meltzer
Moderator

Posts: 4554
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted August 20, 2013 04:16 PM      Profile for Douglas Meltzer   Email Douglas Meltzer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Luciano,

Welcome to the Forum! FilmGuard is an excellent lubricant & cleaner. However, you cannot expect real wet gate projection from any solution unless it is applied to the film during projection. An application will clean and lubricate your film and fill in black lines to an extent, but only if you use a device such as the Film O Clean while projecting will you get the benefits of wet gate projection. There is no product that will give you "true wet gate qualities" unless it is applied just before the film enters the gate.

I only apply FilmGuard once (unless the print is in truly terrible condition). Applying multiple coats of FilmGuard is not necessary. Since I use Film O Clean when projecting, there's no need for another application in a year or two.

Best wishes,
Doug

--------------------
I think there's room for just one more film.....

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 525
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted August 21, 2013 12:12 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
You will actually find if you run the film through the Film-O-Clean between rewinds (no more than 3x normal speed please, maxing out at 2x normal speed is preferred) that the wet gate qualities will be there just as much as cleaning "during" projection. Many people even prefer to apply FilmGuard in this manner, as there is no chance of visible FilmGuard application streaking during that first projection which can happen if cleaning directly before the film enters the gate.

You're easily going to get the full benefit for a month after applying. 6 months down the road, not as much. A year down the road and it will be almost nonexistant as it will have naturally evaporated.

Remember 1 ounce is enough to clean 2 miles of 35mm film, so do the math if you try and apply by hand.

 |  IP: Logged

Luciano Duca
Junior
Posts: 5
From: Rome, Italy
Registered: Aug 2013


 - posted August 21, 2013 10:44 AM      Profile for Luciano Duca   Email Luciano Duca   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Doug and Brad for this information.

So, to get the maximum benefit in image quality, I will apply the FilmGuard shortly before the projections of the films (or just before send them to a lab).

Thanks again.
Luciano [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Luciano Duca
Junior
Posts: 5
From: Rome, Italy
Registered: Aug 2013


 - posted August 28, 2013 10:46 AM      Profile for Luciano Duca   Email Luciano Duca   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi to all.

Regarding the application of FilmGuard, there is still one thing that I did not understand:

the manufacturer says that it is not necessary to apply the FG on the movie more than once (or two, in the case the film is particularly dirty) ...but in the theaters that show the same movie several times each day and that use the cleaner with the FilmGuard mounted on the projector, the FilmGuard is applied again on the film at each show, it is applied several times per day, for each day of scheduling of the movie [Roll Eyes] ?

Or, the film is made to pass in the cleaner (with the FG) only during the first projection, while in subsequent screenings the film isn't made to pass in the cleaner?

Thanks.

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted August 31, 2013 03:00 PM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've worked in cinemas all my life and have never used a film cleaner, on or off the projectors. It was never necessary.
In earlier days we waxed the perforations of our green prints if we were the first to run the print direct from the lab.
Many years later the platters were always earthed to keep static to a minimum, the actual platter surfaces being treated once a week with a special cleaner.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Pete Richards
Master Film Handler

Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010


 - posted August 31, 2013 03:10 PM      Profile for Pete Richards   Email Pete Richards   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I used to get shedding on 35mm prints unless they were lubricated in some way. I think it depends on the projection gear you are running.

One thing with filmguard, it has a tendency to weaken film splices, I have had films fall apart after repeated applications of filmguard, and it is easy to get streaking if not applied very well.

For cleaning, it doesn't dislodge much dirt if applied using a filmo-o-clean in a single pass, it does get rid of dust particles and some hairs etc. though. I still prefer to ultrasonically clean a really dirty print.
But filmguard is great for a fairly clean print, it removes dust and hair and makes for a quieter movement through the gate.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted August 31, 2013 03:13 PM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Maurice, I think that there is a difference between the 35 mm professional copies that turn for a limited time in the cinemas and our films supposed to remain for years in our collections.

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted August 31, 2013 03:18 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think people are overly obsessive with use of film cleaners. I clean if the print requires it, otherwise I see no need to apply any chemical at all to a print. That's just my opinion.

Like Maurice, I also worked as a cinema projectionist, although Maurice has many years more experience than I have. We didn't have film cleaner on the premises.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted August 31, 2013 03:26 PM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Michael, the 2.22 that I referred to in another thread was supposed to also protect the sprocket holes against wear, prevent stuttering, and make the film run at an even tension, reducing the risk of breakage. (Their words not mine). It did clean film, but I initially bought it to protect against scratches. When I first got into home movies I cleaned the gate before each viewing, but still ended up with a few tram lines, after using 2.22 they were no longer visible.

I wouldn't expect the commercial cinema to spend money on cleaners and preservatives, it's a different story for the private collector.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted August 31, 2013 05:20 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know where you're coming from, Robert. Even with private collectors, I feel that a print needs chemical application only if it needs it and not just as a matter of routine when somebody acquires a print.

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 01, 2013 05:02 AM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Michael. My most used chemicals are Isopropyl Alcohol and Adams' Plaster Remover. Both used to remove sticky goo which has issued from lousy tape joins, and the horrible residue left after the head of the film has been taped down.

If you do not do this when you buy a print, the goo will probably shed bits as the film goes through the gate, with subsequent scratching of the film.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted September 01, 2013 06:31 AM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with you 100% Michael; I would not be in favour of films regularly coming into contact with chemicals. The 2.22 was a one off treatment that stayed on for life. I got out some films I bought from Collectors Club in the 70s and when I inspected them I could see the 2.22 was still present.

Remember B&H used to make Humidor Cans for storing 16mm, you were supposed to put a few drops of something on a pad at the bottom and it prevented the film from becoming brittle or shrinking through drying out.

A few years ago Warton Parfitt sent me some samples of film of various gauges, among them was some 9.5mm optical sound from the 1930s; he warned me to handle them very carefully as they were so brittle they could break without warning.

Maurice, given the age of the 16mm guage, and you have a collection of over 800 films, you must have some real gems.

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 01, 2013 10:22 AM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have many pre-war 16mm copies and they are still perfect, shorts and features. They are better than later prints because at one time the 16mm sound projectors on the British market only had 300watt lamps, some excelled with 500watt, but they were a rarity.

Because of this, 16mm films of the era were printed much lighter, so 8ft wide pictures were possible.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted September 02, 2013 12:31 PM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for that info, I didn't know any of this. I learned the other day that some early 16mm films were printed on di-acetate stock, which has a smell of camphor to it. It was supposed to become brittle. I never noticed it on my Kodagraph prints, but still lubricated them as usual. I wonder if there is a way of telling which films are printed on di-acetate stock, and were amber prints exclusive to Kodak?

This site nitrateville.com mentioned that in 2010 a Kodagraph print of Flying Elephants, starring Laurel & Hardy fetched $300.

 |  IP: Logged

Pete Richards
Master Film Handler

Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010


 - posted September 03, 2013 06:56 PM      Profile for Pete Richards   Email Pete Richards   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, filmguard definitely does give a 'wetgate' effect.
Here is the same scene, one on top is filmguard applied, one on the bottom is the same print before application.

I use isopropyl alcohol (100%) to remove stubborn dirt, but filmguard via a film-o-clean when screening.
 -

 |  IP: Logged

Luciano Duca
Junior
Posts: 5
From: Rome, Italy
Registered: Aug 2013


 - posted September 04, 2013 12:22 PM      Profile for Luciano Duca   Email Luciano Duca   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Always about the FilmGuard: I bought a bottle 30oz (with sprayer).
I do not have many copies or originals S.8 and 16mm to be treated, then a 30oz bottle could last several years ...

Who knows how long keeps well the Filmguard (in 30oz bottle)?
Thanks.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 525
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 05, 2013 10:35 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
The shelf life on FilmGuard is 15+ years. If you have let it sit for a long time since the last use, the most you will need to do is shake up the bottle before you use it.

 |  IP: Logged

Luciano Duca
Junior
Posts: 5
From: Rome, Italy
Registered: Aug 2013


 - posted September 06, 2013 11:30 AM      Profile for Luciano Duca   Email Luciano Duca   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ok Brad,
thanks [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted September 10, 2013 11:59 AM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The manufacturer says that if you apply Filmguard by hand you don't get all the benefits. Is that a commercial statment to make you buy a machine or is there a real noticeable diference ?

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1632
From: California
Registered: Aug 2007


 - posted September 10, 2013 05:00 PM      Profile for Bill Brandenstein   Email Bill Brandenstein   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've had some FilmGuard now for a few weeks and can't get visible streaking on screen no matter how wet I get the film. However, I ran one of my old childhood cartoons the other night - full of scratches and specks. Running the film through the corner of a cloth wet with FilmGuard before entering the projector, it took 35 years of wear off the image. In fact, alternating wet/dry/wet/dry was downright fun because the difference was so obvious, much as Pete's photos above illustrate.

I don't know what of the "full benefit" would be missing by hand applying, but I can only think of two disadvantages of handling film this way:
- a lot of solution ends up wasted on the cloth, and over-applying is way too easy (also wasteful) though this hasn't been a visible problem yet, just more expensive;
- FilmGuard eventually dries over time and has to be reapplied if the magic is to continue.

The advantages speak for themselves.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted September 10, 2013 09:50 PM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is what they say on their site : "What if I don't own any media cleaners? You can still use FilmGuard to effectively eliminate static charges and shedding from your prints! The method in this case is simple. Spray a thick cloth with FilmGuard and then wipe the cloth on the top edge of the print as it is laying on the platter. The ideal procedure is to start the platter spinning (from a makeup table or an obstruction in the centerfeed arm) and wipe slowly from outside edge to the center. There should be a definite "wet" glaze to the print. On this next performance, takeup the film "upside down" from your normal procedure and when the show is over, wipe the other side (now up on the platter) in the same manner as before. (Note: using FilmGuard in this manner will not offer cleaning benefits...only the elimination of static and print shedding.)"

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Matt McBride
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: Starkville, MS USA
Registered: Oct 2012


 - posted September 10, 2013 10:25 PM      Profile for Matt McBride     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think FilmGuard was originally made for theater use. Back when I worked as a projectionist, I tried two methods of application of it. Both were the manufacturer's method. I first tried it with the normal film cleaner machine and second I tried just the wiping method on the edges of the print. I did one method on one print and the other method on another print.

The first method made the print look fantastic. It really cleaned up the dirt and dust off of the print. The second method didn't really do this. It did however kept the static down so irregular payout didn't occur. So I think there really is a difference.

Moreover because I think it was originally designed for commercial use, I don't think anyone intended for the projectionists to sit there and hand wipe the whole print, meaning going through each reel on the bench, especially since these prints were ran a lot more often. Plus using the cleaning machines you would get fresh media through out the whole run of the movie, giving a nice even application.

I will say, ever since I started collecting though, I run all of my prints with FilmGuard using one of the cleaning machines and they look great.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 525
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 10, 2013 11:30 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The manufacturer says that if you apply Filmguard by hand you don't get all the benefits. Is that a commercial statment to make you buy a machine or is there a real noticeable diference ?
I am the inventor. I have the pioneer patent awarded by the US government for the first of its kind slow drying cleaner with wet gate projection qualities. There is no other cleaner like it (and with digital taking over, there never will be).

quote:
Is that a commercial statment to make you buy a machine?
Nope. Film-Tech never made a film applicator, nor received any sort of royalties from the companies that have. Only Kelmar made them, and more recently Roy Neil with his Film-O-Clean version for 8mm films. It absolutely is the best way to apply, because it makes it difficult to OVER-apply. However as has been noted by many 8mm collectors, this isn't near the issue with 8mm as it is with 35mm. With 35mm the amount of physical movement to advance each frame in the gate quite literally gets the film skidding PAST the frame advance...which looks like vertical jitter on the screen if the film is "too slick".

Being an 8mm collector, yes you CAN get all of the benefits, but what people tend to do is they apply it FAR too liberally, like you would with normal cleaners (such as trichlourethane based). Remember this formula...

1 ounce is enough to clean over 2 MILES of 35mm film properly.

Now do the math on a mere 400 foot spool of 8mm film. See what I mean when I say a 32oz bottle is going to last an 8mm collector a really, really, really long time? [Wink]

quote:
This is what they say on their site : "What if I don't own any media cleaners? You can still use FilmGuard to effectively eliminate static charges and shedding from your prints! The method in this case is simple. Spray a thick cloth with FilmGuard and then wipe the cloth on the top edge of the print as it is laying on the platter. The ideal procedure is to start the platter spinning (from a makeup table or an obstruction in the centerfeed arm) and wipe slowly from outside edge to the center. There should be a definite "wet" glaze to the print. On this next performance, takeup the film "upside down" from your normal procedure and when the show is over, wipe the other side (now up on the platter) in the same manner as before. (Note: using FilmGuard in this manner will not offer cleaning benefits...only the elimination of static and print shedding.)"
As Matt points out, the website is geared toward 35mm commercial exhibition, and when we initially started giving detailed instructions for film collectors, it was too confusing for the typical multiplex platter guys to understand, so it was dumbed down.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted September 10, 2013 11:41 PM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad, I am very glad and thankful I got an answer from the person who invented the product.

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2