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

This is topic THERMOFILM.-IS IT ANY GOOD?. 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=002545

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on 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.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on 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???

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on 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.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on February 24, 2007, 03:10 AM:

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

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on 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.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on February 25, 2007, 12:48 PM:

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

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on 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]

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on 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.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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!

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on 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.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on 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.

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on 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.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on 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..

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 26, 2007, 08:34 AM:

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

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on 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.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on 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]

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on 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.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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!

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on 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!

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on 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.

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on March 01, 2007, 11:24 AM:

It is simply THE BEST.Andy.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on 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.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 02, 2007, 04:51 AM:

Andy says "It's simply the best" but has he tried the others? I promise you that if you try Filmrenew you will change your opinion.

I should have sent you a sample to try when I shipped your machine back to you then I think you might have changed your mind.

I like the way FR coats the film so evenly and with so little. I found that products like Thermo and 2.22 evaporated very quickly so wasn't so economical to use.

I haven't used too much of the FilmGuard but I think that its much better for actually soaking your film in to allow it to soak into the emulsion etc to help with removing shrinkage and warping. Does anyone else on the forum use FG? and how have they used it?

Kev.

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 02, 2007, 11:05 AM:

Hello Kev
I use both FilmGaurd and FilmRenew, respectfully though if you re-read your post are your not getting your FG and FR mixed up? FilmGaurd is the Filmtech cleaner now available via Paul Foster in the UK, and I agree it cleans well and coats the film very nicely with lube (just don't over apply) whereas FilmRenew is made by Larry Urbanski in the USA, available to import via slow boat / surface mail only, and is the one to use for print soaking / removing warp. I use FilmGaurd on all my films as a final application, but use FilmRenew on my optical sound 16mm prints only as I have found it a little too strong for some early types of magnetic stripe (it removed the stripe from my Walton 2 x 400ft print of Futtocks End for instance).
I do still use Thermofilm on Super 8 / std 8 mag prints to remove heavier grime then finish with FilmGuard as a lube - all safety precautions taken when using Thermofilm but as I used Trichloroethane and MEK based solvents professionally for 15 or so years in the 70's / 80's any damage to my well being has likely been irreversibly done already.
Kevin

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 02, 2007, 12:26 PM:

Hi Kevin, Maybe I have possibly got them round the wrong way for the way they are used but I use FilmRenew on a lint free cloth between my rewinds and it really is excellent. I dont get any tape splices fall apart and they just glide through the GS afterwards.

I haven't noticed any probs with stripe and I have certainly used it on my Waltons, Buck Films, and Derann prints with great success.

Is it FilmRenew that they suggest dunking the film in and not FilmGuard....thinking about it maybe you are right.

I know that the smell of FilmGuard reminded me of the old Harpic toilet cleaner and made my eyes water when using it so gave up in the end.

Your input is valuable...thanks Kevin.

Kev.

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 02, 2007, 05:26 PM:

Hello Kev
Your comment about the smell of the cleaner you refer to as 'FilmGuard' has confirmed the slight mix-up - do you recall I sent you a sample of cleaner 2 or 3 years ago - that was some of my first gallon purchase of FilmRenew from Larry Urbanski in the USA. FilmRenew is totally clear in colour, has the strongest cleaning capabilities of all the modern cleaners, and is regularly used by collectors for soaking / warp reduction. It has certainly fixed a couple of IB Tech. 16mm prints that had focus-pull weaving problems permanently for me, easily paying or itself in one go really. The stripe coming off my Walton print was also likely not helped by my over-zealous application of FilmRenew, combined with the print age / previous storage - it was a cheaply purchased film that ran OK but was dirty and smelt a bit 'damp' initialy - it was probably kept in a loft for years and moisture can of course affect ferrous material (stripe) as well as the film base and emulsion - my plan is to get it re-striped at EVT sometime in the future as the print quality / colour is great.
FilmGuard is slightly yellow / orangy in colour, thankfully now easily available in the UK from Paul Foster although my current 'stash' was imported ages ago. FilmGuard is the only cleaner I have ever used that manages to 'cure' the cracked / crazing effect you sometimes see on old emulsion too. It's great to still have a choice of excellent, modern, purpose-made film cleaners to chose from.
All this talk of cleaning film has given me the urge to disappear into the garage with an in-need-of-TLC print for a 'film revival session' [Big Grin]

Kevin

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 02, 2007, 05:55 PM:

Hi Kevin, It is the bottle from you labeled as FilmRenew that I am talking about. Not much left now but brilliant stuff. Its not however completely clear as it has a slight yellow tinge. It's definitely the bottle from you though.

Am I right in saying that FilmGuard has a strong smell. Where as Renew has a smell more like milldew

Kev.

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 02, 2007, 06:36 PM:

Hello Kev
That is definitely the FilmRenew I imported from Larry Urbanski you like then. Smell wise it is difficult for me to comment as my previous career of many years working with my 'nose-zone amongst the ozone' inside ancient copying and printing equipment has depleted my nasal sensitivity somewhat - I don't find either of them unpleasant to use in my well ventilated (= needs new windows) garage. A picture may be better to indicate the colour difference between the two so here is one I took a few minutes ago - FilmGuard on the left, FilmRenew on the right (not in its original bottle though). FilmRenew is only available to import from Larry Urbanski or Witners, or to share in smaller quantites via like minded film collectors [Wink]

FilmGuard from Paul Foster in the UK and many other dealers in the USA. Lovely stuff both of them, although I prefer a Moscow Mule as my tipple of choice!
Kevin

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 02, 2007, 06:45 PM:

FilmRenew it is. The filmGuard is much darker and its the stuff which smells of Lav cleaner. Very good stuff but I cant stand the smell.
At least thats sorted. I thought I had got the names mixed up.

Sorry to hear about the dead nose [Smile]

Kev

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 03, 2007, 04:11 AM:

Whereas Thermofilm you can sniff and snort on all day long and just feel that all is right with the world. Hic.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on March 03, 2007, 05:04 AM:

"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."

Just a typical Saturday night for me [Big Grin]

I keenly read about decreased fertility, wher can I buy some? [Wink]

Does it affect rubber [Eek!]

As for WD40- don't bring that one up here [Smile]

Thanks for the link Lee.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 03, 2007, 05:26 AM:

We are getting worse! Ha.

Well we did one of our mobile cinema shows last night just off the M6 and I had problems with part of the adysets before leaving. I picked up a very old reel of them last week but the film base was cracking. As the reel was anly a few quid I dosed with WD40 and then wiped off as much as possible just to leave a very thin film. As the intro proggy started my eyes were glued on the screen as I was wanted to see how bad it looked 6ft wide. It did look a little better I thought.

I expect if WD was overdone on mag sound films the sound would be all over the place as the capst & pinch roller would slip?

Anyhow. The show went off well, I got a bit jolly on XXXX and we nearly watched Electric Blue on super 8. See what WD40 can do to you!

The good old Eumig 926GL likes a trip out so we used that to show Terminator in Stereo. Having recorded the sound on the Elmo GS800 I think I could get a bit more level onto the track so may do it again yet. One bloke sat next to the right Bose monitor speaker and he knew it. Moved shortly after.

We all do seem to press on with cine and find ways round items we can no longer buy such as Thermo, even some special drive belts. Hats off to anyone who has a go and keeps the flag flying.

Fun this certainly is.

[ March 03, 2007, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Lee Mannering ]

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 07, 2008, 10:53 AM:

Forgive me for opening up this thread.

As members will know I have had a kind offer of some Thermofilm. Numerous replies led to Lee saying about the dangers of inhaling Carbon Tetrachoride.

This takes me back fifty-six years to 1952 when I was a trainee projectionist with C.M.A. (Circuits Management Association). The floor of my Odeon projection room was wooden parquet, as are/were most Odeon boxes. Once a month the floor was polished. Not new polish on old, dirty, polish but a nice clean floor.

To achieve this all doors were propped open against their springs and the ceiling vents opened wide, then Thawpit (carbon tetrachoride) was used to clean the floor. This was applied with a cloth attached to a bumber, an item that all British servicemen would know well. This was first thing in the morning and the Chief insisted that we did the work in teams of two which meant each team only were in contact with the vapours for some ten minutes or so. A gallon can soon went.

The next morning red Ronuk polish was applied by dipping a stick in the can and "splatting" the polish onto the floor. Then the bristles of the bumber brought up a lovely shine which lasted for a month.

A few years ago I was called out of retirement to assist at a local 4-screen Odeon which still had the original box for the main screen. It was sad to see the floor discoloured and some tiles loose. Apparently the only cleaning was a standard brush-over before opening.

Obviously, the dangers of inhaling carbon tet were known all those years ago.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2