8mm Forum: Overall User Results With VITAFILM or FilmRenew

This is topic Overall User Results With VITAFILM or FilmRenew in forum 16mm 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=5;t=000622

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on February 26, 2011, 06:29 PM:

Greetings, My name is Charles and I'm new to the forum. I'm pleased in becomming a member. I'm a collector and entusiast of many forms of media and one of them is with vintage home movies.

I try my best in not posting questions on forums for which there may already be answers for in previous post. Forgive me however with my first post being so long, but on one topic I've thus far have not managed to find much input on the web anywhere, which are individual testimonials regarding the use of the film conditioners Vitafilm and FilmRenue and the overall results they provided with prints suffering from VS.

Many seem to use them but no one seems to openly comment or give testimonials to their overall results. Even the Film Preservaion Guilds make no mention or reccomendations for their use, however some of it's members have privately used them in their collections, but withour further comments.

I bought my first gallon of VITAFILM a few months ago as a first line of treatment for films which have a vinegar smell. Some of the films which I have soaked for the 2 days as directed, will still emit a faint VS smell just prior to sealing them for a 3-6 month curation period. My other lines of treatments after the curation period, will be with Molecular Seives and perhaps even freezing, but not without furthur readings and trial with less significant film samples.

My question is for those who have used VITAFILM or FILMRENEW, and their experiences with how they actually performed after an extended period of time with prints which had VS?

Further, I also have issues with treating healthy films with the same batch of VF solution which I had used with treating prints which had advanced stages of VS. Vitafilm claims this is acceptable and will not affect healty prints. I find it difficult treat rare and one of a kind films of historical value without knowing the experiences of others. I at the same time, can't buy VF by the truck load.

Forgive me for this most loaded and bloated posting, however any input towards this will be greatly appreciated. I thank you for your time in reading.

Charles

[ February 27, 2011, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Charles Watkins ]

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on February 26, 2011, 07:53 PM:

If you are buying those products to treat VS, you have wasted your money. Used as cleaners they are ok products to use. VitaFilm will help mask the smell of VS much better than Filmrenew. Neither will cure VS.

If you want to keep the film for any length of time, keep it separate from non VS prints, keep it out of cans, rewind and clean often. I have had prints that had eye watering VS. And cleaning every few months and storing in a clean open air environment seems to have slowed the process...at least the visible warp has not got any worse and the smell is very slight.

There is a difference of opinion if it is "ok" to use contaminated with VS cleaners on film that show no signs of VS. MY personal opinion is why take the chance...the cleaners are cheap enough to have enough set aside for VS prints.

To treat a non VS but warped or curled film, I'd suggest LFP or pure camphor. Pure camphor crystals are cheaper but can take a long time to work...

Soaking a warped film in VitaFilm or FilmRenew don't help IMHO, except for making you re-do all splices. Even Mr. Urbanski himself has mixed results with warped films and soaking in his own product.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 27, 2011, 05:34 PM:

Charles - welcome to the forum. Are you familiar with A-D test strips, to test films for VS? If not you can read about them via: https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/imaging/ad-strips

I tried asking on the 16mm Forum (I mean the one elsewhere) if any one had tried using them before and after any form of treatment in relation to a VS film, but no one reported having done so. It would be interesting as the strips indicate how advanced VS is. I intend to try this in relation to molecular seives soon.

I've never used Vitafilm but no one seems to support its claims in relation to VS. However, it would be interesting if someone used A-D strips to rest a film before, and a few months after, a full Vitafilm treatment. Even if the Vitafilm results in no improvement whatsoever, A-D strip evidence would offer hard facts that would be useful in refuting its claims.

Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on February 27, 2011, 10:43 PM:

I can tell you for a fact, that Vitafilm does not help combat VS in any measurable way. It does a good job cleaning and preserving film, but its fumes are very strong. I prefer using FilmRenew.I used Vitafilm on a VS print of a B+W Gunsmoke episode. I soaked the film for about a month and cleaned it carefully after removing from the soaking. The smell was much better. However, six months later I had to dispose of the print as it had warped beyond anything close to being able to be projected...

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on February 28, 2011, 02:30 PM:

Greetings, Wayne, Adrian, and Michael, I appreciate your answers and perhaps we will get more accounts from others as well. These accounts can only help others towards making better decisions with treating their films. As one can not know for sure if all they have to go on is with what is printed and advertised from the seller.

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on February 28, 2011, 04:28 PM:

I have never tried to to treat a VS print. I just isolate it and let it off gas or give it away. I used Film Renew and Film Guard mostly for covering base side lines and cleaning.

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on March 01, 2011, 05:54 PM:

Hi Dan, I agree and would normally not want to keep films in my collection that were suffering VS, but some of the films I try to treat contain rare and historical footage. Since they are home movies they are often one of a kind. I would at least like to try and stabalize the film well enough to prevent furthur decay from VS and have it transferred or duped. Luck would have it that I recently landed a 400ft reel of 16mm Kodachrome with exceptional footage of TIMES SQUARE in New York City. It was shot around November of 1942 and it is loaded with exceptionally well shot footage.

There is no curling or dimensional damage, but it has a VERY strong vinegar smell. I've managed well with stabalizing similar films in the past but this one seems to be proggressing a bit more strongly. I've seen this happen with films before, and I know this time to act more quickly. I have been letting it air out for about a week, and the VS smell has seemingly grown much stronger and some mild curling of the film is more noticeable on the edges. I tried something a bit more drastic tiis morning which had worked in the past with other films, and it seems to be working well with this one...for now. I know this will likely draw a lot of rebuke, but cleaning a film with WD-40 will sometimes do a good job with taming the rate of VS when it seems to be progressing at a faster rate than usuall. I have a fesh batch of Molecular Sieve on order and the quicker I can isolate this in the freezer, the better.

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on March 01, 2011, 06:13 PM:

If you have truly rare or historical footage that has gone VS, it should be sent to Jack Rizzo so you could have a safety neg made to preserve it.

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on March 02, 2011, 10:30 AM:

I'm happy to report that the film has responded well to the WD 40 and now seems in a more manageable state. This is the fourth time WD 40 has saved the day. My grandfather had started me in the practice with cleaning films when I was in high school. I do not know the full contents of WD 40, but it seems to assist with some prints having VS by driving out the excessive moisture which may have developed during shipment in the mail. Either way, I'm glad it has thus far seems to have reduced the rate of an active flare up to almost nil.

Wayne, I've been looking into sources for having some of my movies duplicated with film and I had been preparing some for CinemaLab in Denver. Please give me a link for Rizzo. While I scan copies of my films into strips (not physically cut) with a high resolution optical scanner which I've adapted for channeling movie film. I agree it's not likely as convenient as a Rank-Cintel would deliver, but I'm at least able to produce large and edit-worthy stills in DNG format in my own home. However, I greatly desire to have film dupes made of the materials I have which I feel befit archives and donate the originals to more worthy and valid archive establishments.

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on March 02, 2011, 11:55 AM:

WD-40 is not a good idea for film. The petroleum base can have adverse effects and over time the product can dry leaving the film tacky possible causing greater damage.

Jack's info:

Jack Rizzo
| President |
Metropolis Post
201.681.7996
www.metpostny.com

He scans film in real time with audio to create safety negs from what I understand.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 442) on March 24, 2011, 09:05 AM:

I have bought from Jack, and can tell you his overall work and color timing are nothing short of excellent. Highly recommended.

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on March 24, 2011, 10:00 AM:

Oh no! Not the WD-40 debate again. [Eek!]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on May 21, 2011, 11:46 PM:

One of the two reels of Way Out West, had a very slight VS odor and film warp. I back wound and twisted the film on rewinds I poured just enough to cover the bottom of the film can, and after 8 months it was un warped and without any smell of VS.

I have a print of The Music Box and it wound in an egg shape on the take up reel. It only had curl and by only back winded (inverted on the reel) and treated in Film Renew. This took about 2 years.

My friend soaked some prints in Vita film and changed the solution every three months and over a six month period, and it eliminated the VS. -It did not mask the smell.

He also had Citizen Kane. That feature was scratch treated, and the Vita Film treatment did not work to eliminate the VS. He dumped the feature in the pail. Scratch treated prints are coated, and are prevented from gassing out.

I would not reuse any lubricant that has been applied to film for VS.

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on June 03, 2011, 01:41 PM:

FOLLOW UP: Greetings again, Last week I started opening film cans in which I had treated prints with VITAFILM. Most of the prints I treated have been stored unopened for 6 months. The initial results are mixed, but most of the prints have displayed some noticeable benefit while a few did not. It did particualarly well with some of the films which had suffered a noticeable degree of curling, in which I had back-winded (against the curl) onto their reels just prior to curing them in their film cans for 6 months. After allowing them to fully air out (in a brown paper bag) and rewinding them back to their original state, they do indeed apear quite improved and even are most likely projectable. I will have to add that I don't think Vitafilm is a miracle by far, and some films fared quite differently. There are other drawbacks to it's use as well; most notably...the FUMES! (I will try and post more on it later) Charles

[ June 04, 2011, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Charles Watkins ]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 03, 2011, 05:29 PM:

Charles,

Sometimes the process takes a very long time.
I've had films resting in a back wound for two years, with some treatment inbetween and it was finally corrected.

I guess it was luck.
I would not worry about the fumes.

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on June 04, 2011, 02:12 AM:

Greetings Michael, First please allow me to thank the forum for allowing such a timely period for editing and making corrections in ones post! I make so many more errors when I type threads through my mobile phone.

Anyhow, Are you really able to deal with the fumes that well? I accidentally left a jar of it uncovered one night, only to wake up the next day and find that almost half of it had already evaporated. It's sixteen feet from floor to ceiling in my loft apartment, and my ears were ringing at their peak for months. I liked to have never flushed all the fumes out, and the people upstairs had worried I had a drug lab set up...lol.

I appreciate your mentioning against re-using solutions that were used on prints with VS. As I ran out of fresh stock, I treated a few films with some used solution, and these films do not seem to be shaking the smell of active VS, as many of the others have. Many have stated that Vitafilm will only mask the smell of VS, but I can still detect the smell of vinegar quite well, even when it's blended with the spirits of camphor.

I'm curious if you also might have noticed that Vitafilm seems a bit tempermental. I noticed most of the conditioning effects to have kicked-in when the heat of the summer had started. Vitafilm performs best it seems in temps above 75 degrees.

I've also tried Filmguard, (but won't go there) but I'd almost bet that a tanker full of WD-40 backs up to the plant in the dead of night. I'm not sure what else is added to it, but my guess would be maple syrup. BTW Michael, next time you have a junk film for experimentation that is plagued with VS, try drenching it with some WD-40, and putting it in a brown paper bag and leaving it in the garage for a few weeks. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by the results. I won't argue against those who suggest against it, but just try it. It cleans off well, but takes about three runs between a cloth. I use Rasco cloth. (I hope I don't sound like a salesman...I swear I'm not.)

[ June 04, 2011, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Charles Watkins ]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 04, 2011, 12:16 PM:

Charles,

Oh no, the fumes are horrible.
Vitafilm: the smell or urinal cakes. [Eek!]

-Blecchh.

Yeah, it's a smell that I can do without. De gassing with a fan, and out a window.

The Filmrenew took a while, and the fumes are horrible too.
I keep them all in metal reels and cans, and until all is gone.

About "brown bagging" it, it's not any substitute for a good turkey sandwich.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on June 15, 2011, 02:12 PM:

Forgive me for keeping air pumped in this post and floating back to the surface, but I felt it would not be fair for me to leave out my positive experiences with using Film Renew, which I received last week in the mail. I am very pleased with how well it performs and is an excellent cleaner. (It's even puts my WD-40 back in it's shelf, which many will be pleased to know.) I find it far more tolerable for indoor use as well, where my use is usually casually brief. It's a great product. I was also pleased with how well it allowed for dissolving of camphor blocks in a separated batch solution I poured in a jar. Maybe good for using in special applications which might benefit from having more camphor...and it is much cheaper than VitaFilm! I thank you all for contributing towards my questions and I've gained much from your input. Charles

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on June 15, 2011, 06:03 PM:

I guess it was the recent post that made this thread noticeable to me, but as a last thought I would advise against EVER putting reversal film in with camphor...I actually use this method at work to remove the emulsion from the base...Camphor works great and quick with diacetate films and nitrate....

Also I can't imagine how effective the camphor crystals will become once it has been absorbed into the film renew, it seems to me that might actually neutralize the effects, but I am not a chemist.. I just know that I always use the camphor first if I am treating a film because if the cleaner is present on the film in any way when I seal it in with the crystals, the crystals usually turn to liquid and the film does not do what I want it to...

As a follow up on the film guard I really think that the folks that don't like it are not using it correctly, since it was originally designed (if I am not mistaken) for single films that are run repeatedly... For the home consumer to use it effectively (since they do not use their prints the same way a commercial multiplex does) you really need to run the film through the cleaner a couple of times before projecting to see the benefits and not just streaks (which it states right on the package)..

Here is an image of the same frame of film at two different times. The first is as it is being captured the first time through Roy Neil's film-o-clean and applying film guard...The second image is after it has run through film guard 4 times....Keep in mind another thing that may interfere with folks seeing what they want to see after using film guard is how it is applied...Using the film-o-clean I know i get a steady safe application which I can't guarantee if I am just running it through a cloth and my fingers...I would only use a quick drying cleaner for that method....and for myself I don't use vitafilm for anything ever...

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 15, 2011, 06:36 PM:

quote:
I was also pleased with how well it allowed for dissolving of camphor blocks in a separated batch solution I poured in a jar. Maybe good for using in special applications which might benefit from having more camphor...and it is much cheaper than VitaFilm!

A must read to everyone that participates on this Forum
I do not recommend for anyone to create any "bromide" for any application, that has not been researched and tested.

Hobbyists potentially run a grave risk, to your health and let alone to the films.
There is not any guarantee in how this could affect health and life in future years.

Film Renew is classified as a stoddard solvent.
Paint thinner is also a stoddard solvent, and I would not apply paint thinner to films by any means.

Paint thinner and Film Renew have recorded flash points. These chemicals also have threshold exposure limits, and are measured in ppt - parts per million.

Ask these questions:
1.) What is the purpose of camphor?
2.) What is the purpose of paint thinner?
3.) What is the flash point of Film Renew that is mixed with camphor?
4.) What is the unknown byproduct from mixed chemicals, and the compounded chemistry that could jeopardize your health?
- Why? For a lousy solution for film preservation?
These variables present the unknown.

Bleach and ammonia are household cleaning products, and should never be mixed together. The combination creates deadly fumes.

The U.S. Federal Government established OSHA and OOSH to protect people in the workplace.

There were construction workers in California that were given cleaning agents to use on the job, which also had unknown affects. As time progressed it was learned that the wives of the workers could not conceive children and this was due to the specific cleaning chemical used at work.

PESH: The Public Employee Safety and Health Act, and the Hazardous Communication Act became law. It mandates information to be made public, and that everyone has a right to know. The Right-to-Know Act became law.

The law is extended to the public. Household cleaners, chemicals, waxes, detergents, soaps, hair shampoo and conditioner, automotive products - you name it, mandates companies to supply by law and to release an MSDS - Material Safety Data Sheet at anyones request.
Hobbyists also have a Right-to-Know. It's best to use a commercial and industry product, that has been lab tested in order to safeguard the public's health.

Learning how to interpret chemicals and ppt is relevant to understand exposure threshold limits.
The relative lower value represents the concentration it takes to fill the air to a level of toxicity.

This is serious. We do not know the complexity and interaction of chemicals. Leave that to a chemist. Film Renew was created, when VitaFilm was not being manufactured any longer.
Larry Urbanski went to a chemist to create Film Renew. It's a tested product.

It's made with cleaning and lubricating properties, to reduce any wear and tear on the film and projectors. 35mm projectionists used wax, to "edge wax" a film for theatrical presentations and it's not recommended for the home.

I spoke about MSDS in an earlier thread.

Be careful and enjoy the hobby.

[ June 15, 2011, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Michael De Angelis ]

Posted by Charles Watkins (Member # 2469) on June 16, 2011, 05:22 AM:

I've long used camphor spirits with killing mold and fungus growths on infected films. It is my first line of treatment prior to freezing the films and removing mold growths that have embetted into the emulsion. I pride myself in having achievied many successful film restorations with it's application, but I am a singular practitioner. I've also used camphor as well as glycerin with old diacetate films which have developed a stubborn spiraling curl, which I often encounter with old diacetates. They are both known plastcizers, however camphor in my opinion generates a better response with diacetate films.

Camphor oil as many of you are familiar were also used in older times, as many old film cans have a special resivor for dripping with camphor oil which was retained underneath a metal grate. Vitafilm also contains camphor, but as to what ammount is anyones guess. Petroleum distilates and various other hydrocarbon solvents have long been used in various brands of film cleaners, and are most likely even used in products like Film-Guard and VITAFILM. They should be less of a concern for their useage with films which are actively decaying with VS, but this is only in my humble opinion.

It nevertheless no doubtly pays to do ones homework before dealing with solvents and chemical agents of any kind, as I was to learn when being hasty with making ambrotypes. Where I gained myself a dark nitrate (burn) stain on my right thumb which had lated for almost a decade. I should not speak so haphazzard on the handling of camphor without some considerations for it's health risk. However, some warnings are often described in excess for their potential liability risk, and if you read the haz-mat data on salt, you might realize just how some descriptions are taken to the extreme. I myself don't generally employ use of chemicals without some level of care and pre-consideration, and when experimenting with something new, I always try to employ it with less than usually significant materials that are of little or no value. I've had my losses as well as rewards in my trials and errors with employing the use of various types of chemicals and products.

Many might think some of the materials are not worth the effort, but I've managed obtaining images from what many would likely have written off as impossible to salvage. I just recently managed to save and scan roughly 95% of a 16mm film which had become so advanced in it's decay that it had fused the film can shut with a blueish type of build up which had to be cut open with a dremel tool. The film was home-movie footage that had been shot in Hiroshima, Japan in 1937. While the footage is not pristine, it does nevertheless reveal a rare glimpse into the life of a city before it had been destroyed with the bomb. It is not a mass produced duplicate of Tom Mix, but a true one of a kind.

[ June 19, 2011, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Charles Watkins ]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 16, 2011, 07:41 PM:

Good to know. Thanks for posting.

Posted by Bret del Rio (Member # 6141) on October 25, 2017, 03:18 PM:

Charles,

I found your last post in this thread which is of great interest to me. I hope my message isn't too late afterwards.

You stated "... I've managed obtaining images from what many would likely have written off as impossible to salvage. I just recently managed to save and scan roughly 95% of a 16mm film which had become so advanced in it's decay that it had fused the film can shut with a blueish type of build up which had to be cut open with a dremel tool."

I have several reels of 8mm film circa late 1940's and after into the 1960's which match your description exactly. I too was told 90% was unsalvageable a couple months ago but have kept them in refrigeration until I can find a solution. It seems you may have one worth trying. Can you tell me exactly what you did?

Many thanks.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2