8mm Forum: 16mm film cleaning

»	8mm Forum » 16mm Forum » 16mm film cleaning

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: 16mm film cleaning

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted April 02, 2017 04:50 PM

Although we have dabbled in 16mm we now have a few features. With super 8, checking and cleaning a film is vital.
My question, is it the same with 16mm?
As a user of filmguard i have read that cleaning 16 can often be troublesome with the opticle soundtracks. Surerly they do have to be given a clean up?
I have also read that many collectors just dont clean there 16mm prints.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted April 02, 2017 05:16 PM

On 8, Filmguard does induce some added erroneous noise to the optical track, especially so if viewed immediately after cleaning.

While I dearly love the merits provided by Filmguard for either mag striped or silent Super 8mm film, it wouldn't be my first choice as an overall cleaner for Super 8mm Optical film.

I can only imagine the same would be said for the larger gauge version.

Derann's old cleaner works well imo for optical sound films.
Terrible for pasted stripe, but a very good cleaner for film and therefore an optical printed soundtrack, of course.

It won't lubricate your film not nearly as well, but you can't always have everything and cleanliness is the number one priority on optical films to make the most of your printed soundtrack without any additional noise from the track.

Expect unnecessary additional projection running noise through the gate using something along the same lines as Derann's old cleaner, but for 16mm usage, I don't suppose this would be of great significance overall.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Adrian Winchester
Film God

Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004

posted April 02, 2017 07:52 PM

Tom - I think it's impossible to generalise. E.g. I have a few 1990s 16mm features that I'd clean to be thorough, but some people would consider this superfluous, and I can't say you would notice any difference on projection. On the other hand, I have occasionally cleaned something like a 1950s b/w film that has left so much black soot-like deposits on the cloth that I've cleaned it again to get more off! I find this baffling, because if I actually wanted to make a film that dirty, I'd have no idea how to do so! I use Film Renew, which is economical and good for cleaning, but it unfortunately became impossible to obtain it from the USA once surface mail ended. You could use Cresclene from CHC, which is good, although I think this can't be posted. I'm sure that some collectors use Filmguard on 16mm and don't consider it problematic. However, as this is used sparingly, I'd imagine that it might be better as a lubricant than it would be for getting substantial amounts off dirt of a print.

--------------------
Adrian Winchester

| IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

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

posted April 03, 2017 02:29 AM

My largest film collection is on 16mm. If I buy a film which is clearly dirty I use Isopropanol Alcohol.

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

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted April 03, 2017 03:18 AM

The only time Filmguard is ever a problem on any gauge of film is when it is over applied - yes it does hide base scratches if the film is projected effectively 'wet' but the trade off elsewhere in slippage around sound drums and pinch rollers is not worth it.

I have used it on films that appeared dry and stuttering to great effect but really only in very small amounts and have never had problems with optical sound playback.

I would be careful if you use the Derann stuff on acetate prints Andrew as it has caused warping on acetate prints according to some users - best keep it for poly prints only.

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted April 03, 2017 04:11 AM

Thanks for the tip there Kevin. Most appreciated my friend.

I have used Derann cleaner to clean both types of Optical prints and so far at least Kevin, I personally haven't seen any adverse reaction on any of my Optical Sound prints.

I have used Filmguard once or twice in the early years back on optical prints and no matter how sparingly I applied it and then subsequently cleaned the film afterwards with a dry cloth, I was left with additional noise to the track picked up by the lamp and the lens encrypting the sound.

These are just my experiences of course and I never project 16mm film so perhaps this isn't the case on this gauge, I don't know, it was just a hunch?

Incidentally, I personally, don't ever experience any problems around the pinch roller or sound heads when using Filmguard on any of my projectors.
I have only witnessed this to be an issue, even on very "wet" newly applied film on an ST 1200 I used to run and a Goko Editor that I still run, never on the current range of projectors I use nowadays.

If I have recording duties lined up for a newly acquired film I may wish to transfer one track to another on, I always do this task first now, before then applying Filmguard and then projecting for my very first time.

[ April 03, 2017, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Joe Taffis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1592
From: United States
Registered: Jun 2003

posted April 03, 2017 08:16 AM

Very interesting topic Tom...
As you know along with super 8, I finally got into 16mm collecting last year, and constantly learning more about it. I've been using FilmGuard on my 16mm prints with no noticeable optical sound problems when used sparingly...
I always inspect every film I get between the rewinds to do any repairs or splicing before cleaning and screening. With 16mm the job is more work than super 8, this may be a reason some that some don't do it!
By the way, since Kevin mentioned it, I tried Derann Film Cleaner way back when, and it warped the first acetate film I used it on...

--------------------
Joe Taffis

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted April 03, 2017 08:19 AM

Unlucky there Joe. [Frown]

I shall be on my guard in future given Kevin's excellent helpful advice. [Wink]

It would only ever be used on Optical prints by myself anyhow, never magnetic ones.

I may now switch altogether to another cleaner for these and count my lucky stars.

Ironic though isn't it, that a company so iconic as Derann is to film, could ever had issued a product to use on their film products that has so many potential pitfalls and proved to be just completely unsuitable in so many instances.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Joe Taffis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1592
From: United States
Registered: Jun 2003

posted April 03, 2017 03:58 PM

Yes, ironic...exactly my thought when it happened Andrew! Luckily the film wasn't an expensive one, so I didn't make a fuss with Derann about it. Way back then I usually used Kodak movie film cleaner. Never had a problem and it worked great, especially filling in small scratches. It was later discontinued due to the chemical content...

--------------------
Joe Taffis

| IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted April 03, 2017 03:58 PM

thank you to all for your comments on here.
oddly enough i have a quarter of a bottle of the Derann film cleaner here. I did stop using it due to the poor press, it also seemed a bit of a dry liquid if you know what i mean [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted April 03, 2017 04:04 PM

A terrific cleaner of film Tom and an over efficient cleaner of pasted stripe!

A poor excuse for a film lubricant though.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2