8mm Forum: THERMOFILM.-IS IT ANY GOOD?.

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » THERMOFILM.-IS IT ANY GOOD?. (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: THERMOFILM.-IS IT ANY GOOD?.

Andrew Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 784
From: dundonald,belfast,co.antrim,northern ireland.
Registered: Jan 2006

posted February 23, 2007 03:50 PM

Hello fellow members,Can anyone till me if this product is any good
for ALL film stocks?.This ref.is mainly aim at old b/w prints.Any thoughts.Andy.

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted February 23, 2007 04:26 PM

The older thermofilm is slightly more toxic, the newer( EU regs) was less whiffy but not as much grease in. With the older version even years after a nice thin even film stayed on the film.
Sometimes when you buy a film you can see a good versions film still on the film as it were.
For acetate nothing beats filmgaurd at the moment, also least toxic of any available I`ve seen or used.
Best Mark.
PS on non low fade stock 2,22 seems to have quickened the fade, wonder what Thermofilm is like on that score???

| IP: Logged

Kevin Faulkner
Film God

Posts: 4071
From: Essex UK
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 23, 2007 05:47 PM

My pref is for FilmRenew. You can buy this from Foster Films. Its very kind to your films and has very good lubricating properties.

Mark is right about 2.22. I have found that early Eastman stocks that have been treated with this product have faded far quicker than ones which werent. Thermofilm is from the same era and I for one would leave it alone.

Kev.

--------------------
GS1200 Xenon with Elmo 1.0...great combo along with a 16-CL Xenon for that super bright white light.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 24, 2007 03:10 AM

Leave Thermofilm alone Kevo? The best film preservative and cleaner known to man?

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Kevin Faulkner
Film God

Posts: 4071
From: Essex UK
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 24, 2007 04:38 AM

John, I think Thermofilm uses trichloro..... which is not a nice substance to handle as it's absorbed through the skin which is one reason I prefer to leave it.

Filmrenew leaves a really nice coating of lube on the film and doesnt seem to dissapear with repeated showings which I found happenes with 2.22 and Thermo.

At the end of the day it's down to personal pref as to which you use but give Filmrenew a try on your film as it enters the projector and you will see most marks magically disappear before your eyes [Smile]

Kev.

--------------------
GS1200 Xenon with Elmo 1.0...great combo along with a 16-CL Xenon for that super bright white light.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 25, 2007 12:10 PM

When my stockpile of Thermofilm expires in a few decades I'll give it a try.

Probably good advice with regards to all film cleaners is to wash hands thoroughly after each usage. Thermofilm appears to be okay as I've been mixing it with vodka and orange for years without any side effects. [Wink]

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted February 25, 2007 12:48 PM

I never do any lubbing withought decent OK chemical wise gloves.
Best mark.

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted February 25, 2007 01:22 PM

I use Latex disposable gloves and as Kev has mentioned chemicals can be absorbed through the skin, treat all chemicals with care and caution, and would suggest cleaning films in a well vented area so you dont get high. [Eek!]

I also put my rewind arms as far apart as possible so by the time the film reaches the take up, the film cleaner/lub has had time to dry, using gloves and even safety glasses is a good idea.

Graham [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted February 25, 2007 01:29 PM

Asked Paul Foster at Farnworth. He does not do Film Renew

Re Carbon tetrachloride used in old film cleaners etc.
If you are still silly enough to be using some of the older film preservatives here is what the industry has proven may happen to you as result. Take note. We stopped using these here years ago!

High exposure to carbon tetrachloride can cause liver, kidney, and central nervous system damage. These effects can occur after ingestion or breathing carbon tetrachloride, and possibly from exposure to the skin. The liver is especially sensitive to carbon tetrachloride because it enlarges and cells are damaged or destroyed.

Kidneys also are damaged, causing a build up of wastes in the blood. If exposure is low and brief, the liver and kidneys can repair the damaged cells and function normally again. Effects of carbon tetrachloride are more severe in persons who drink large amounts of alcohol.

If exposure is very high, the nervous system, including the brain, is affected. People may feel intoxicated and experience headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, and nausea and vomiting. These effects may subside if exposure is stopped, but in severe cases, coma and even death may occur.

There have been no studies of the effects of carbon tetrachloride on reproduction in humans, but studies in rats showed that long-term inhalation may cause decreased fertility.
END... Literally.

Film cleaning with these chemicals is a serious business, so please do take note. Some years ago a dear friend who used to take in collectors films for cleaning was rushed into hospital with Liver problems. He used that well known film treatment several times a week I should think in a well ventilated room. He also used to like a few beers. I went to see him in hospital at that time and he broke the news that his consultant had told him alcohol in the bloodstream accelerates the effects of carbon tetrachloride on the liver.

These days you are not permitted to sell these types of cleaners/preservatives which is why the sensible cine dealers stopped selling them. I was surprised to see ebay taking the listings this week, obviously through ignorance, and more so the seller for chancing the listing.

I worked after leaving college in my 20’s as a darkroom technician, so have seen my share of chemicals being removed from sale. Please do not underestimate the damage that can be done from harmful chemistry, and this one is certainly one to be avoided.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 26, 2007 05:41 AM

Cor, I'd better stop using the most tried and tested and successful film cleaner/preservative the four or five times a year I use it otherwise I'll end up an alcoholic nervous wreck.

I like the idea of it making you infertile though. Now perhaps if we made everyone use it the population explosion would be halted in its tracks and all the do-gooders could shut up about global warming!

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 784
From: dundonald,belfast,co.antrim,northern ireland.
Registered: Jan 2006

posted February 26, 2007 06:50 AM

John,im with you on that one.Just one thing though.Back in the hey-day of super8 we had two choices...
2.22 or THERMOFILM.
Most people,like myself,or for that matter,Keith Wilton,used it.im still here,i think Keith is too.
What would everyone else use if there was no FILMGUARD,or FILMRENEW?My point is what would they use for film cleaning?.
If THERMOFILM was still around,today,how many collectors would admit to using it.Andy.

| IP: Logged

Kevin Faulkner
Film God

Posts: 4071
From: Essex UK
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 26, 2007 07:13 AM

What a big IF....the point is that there are other modern day cleaners out there. These have to pass very stringent tests from both the H&S people as well as by film manufacturers like Kodak. If Thermo was still being made I think we can say that it wouldn't be that same product as was on sale 30yrs ago so would it be as good I wonder?

Don't forget there is also the brews from Derann (Liquid Film Cleaner) and Classic (Creslcean).

I used 2.22 back in it's heyday which I thought was better for its lube properties than Thermo.
Currently I have tried the other brews available and I dont think anything beats FilmRenew. Its pleasant to use, lubes the film very well, tape splices stay put and it doesn't seem to dry out again like the others do.

The thing to do is try them and see how you get on. One word of warning Derann's contains Isoprop which does dry out Actetate film base so be careful of those old non poly based films. Over use could cause warpage.

Kev.

--------------------
GS1200 Xenon with Elmo 1.0...great combo along with a 16-CL Xenon for that super bright white light.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 784
From: dundonald,belfast,co.antrim,northern ireland.
Registered: Jan 2006

posted February 26, 2007 07:28 AM

Well Kevin.I can only say that i to used 2.22 and Thermo.I thought Thermo was better.In my view,we should wear gloves,no matter what type of lub/cleaner we,as a film buffs,use.After all,what we dont what is our oily fingers on our films.no much point cleaning our films then,is there?
I too have used cresclean and Derann's l.f.c.;there good,but not as good as the old thermofilm.
I do admit that i haven't tried either FILMGUARD/OR FILMRENEW.
What i have heard i does sound excellent products.One day i will maybe use it.But if thermo can still be bought then i will buy it.Andy.This is what the forum is all about.Us collectors expressing our views on all film subjects.Great.

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted February 26, 2007 07:31 AM

From John Clancy "all the do-gooders could shut up "

Don’t really see how forwarding health information regarding safe chemicals can really be laughed off as a do-gooder John. I would have thought common sense would have been a better term.

For those who are concerned about the chemicals they use at home you might want to have a look at this web site.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts30.html

It is the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, a professional organisation that has advised against the use of such substances which are KNOWN to be harmful as can be found in Thermofilm and the like.

Not such a joke John..

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 26, 2007 08:34 AM

Guess I'll stay with ArmorAll wipes. [Big Grin]

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted February 26, 2007 09:20 AM

Good idea.
I know the Carbon Tet details sound a bit sharp perhaps, but I would hate to think of anyone coming unstuck through ignorance when its better to be safe than sorry. I am sure many are still using it, but I remember the worry we had when my friend became ill and we thought he was gone. Just not worth it.

For very old 9.5 films I have been using WD40 on one pass, then two run throughs on a clean cloth to lift off. This leaves a very thin film and makes a nice job.

Regards from sunny Uk.

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted February 26, 2007 02:11 PM

Its not so much that chemicals are dangerous "they all are" its how you use them, and protect yourself from the hazard they possess. I spent many years in Aviation and worked with some real nasty stuff but we all took precautions. I would not put people of using there old film cleaners etc if they are happy with the results, basic safety, gloves etc and common sence and you will be fine, if the fumes are a bit srong then do your film cleaning outside in the fresh air, I do!

Graham. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 27, 2007 05:18 AM

I wasn't suggesting you were a "do-gooder" Lee. Cor, I'd only use that insult on the devils who are destroying everything in this once great nation. My point is Thermofilm is not going to cause any problems with limited use.

Blimey, I've got a headache! Whoops, must stop swigging on the Thermofilm.

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Kevin Faulkner
Film God

Posts: 4071
From: Essex UK
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 27, 2007 05:34 AM

John, I have to add here that Thermo hasn't been made for years now and that the composition could have changed over years (deterioration) with the result that's its not so good now.

I opened a can of Thermo about a year ago and had to throw it because it had floaters in the can. On further investigation I found that the white coating inside the can was peeling off.

Best stick with new formulated mixtures.

Kev.

--------------------
GS1200 Xenon with Elmo 1.0...great combo along with a 16-CL Xenon for that super bright white light.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 27, 2007 12:04 PM

I'll check one of my cans later.

Thermofilm wasn't as good in the end possibly thanks to the unelected beauraucrats in the EU banning certain substances (hence its ultimate demise) but the main deterioration was less wax within its content. However, it is still the most tried and tested film cleaner and preservative available to me and that is why I have no intention of switching. When I do try something new everything I've read on the 35mm forum points to Film Guard being the most reliable. Just have to hope it doesn't turn films red!

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted February 28, 2007 06:39 AM

I always felt Thermo was good for new films, but with the old B&W Acetate type I used to use 2.22. Later I switched to Film Renew and this had always been fine here. Expect we all have our favourites.
Happy days!

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted March 01, 2007 03:33 AM

I still have some 2.22 too! Or should that read 2.22 2?

You'd be surprised what a load of codswallop that stuff was compared to Thermofilm if you tried it today.

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted March 01, 2007 07:02 AM

Of course one of the truly great things about Thermo was that once inhaled it was with you for life! That wasn’t mentioned in the sales literature.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 784
From: dundonald,belfast,co.antrim,northern ireland.
Registered: Jan 2006

posted March 01, 2007 11:24 AM

It is simply THE BEST.Andy.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted March 02, 2007 04:14 AM

Quite right Andrew. And strangely, I've been on a high ever since I first used it. Can't quite understand why.

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2