This is topic 8mm Film Cleaning ....DIY alternatives in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by Keith Heydon (Member # 3138) on January 10, 2013, 06:45 PM:
[ January 11, 2013, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Keith Heydon ]
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 10, 2013, 06:54 PM:
You have what?
Posted by Keith Heydon (Member # 3138) on January 10, 2013, 07:21 PM:
...I'm a "goof" ..what I'm looking for is a DIY method of "cleaning " my 8mm film with a view to ultimately digitizing. I've searched this forum ..and, there's a ton of conflicting info ...
I'm wondering if the Goo-Gone / 50% & 99% Isopropyl Alcohol method is a safe option? ...and, if so ...what the means of application are?
Thanks in advance for any advice re: film cleaning!
Posted by Manuel Tapia (Member # 3249) on January 10, 2013, 07:38 PM:
I recommend you to use FILM GUARD, works great !!! i'll not risk my film using a untested methods !
Posted by Keith Heydon (Member # 3138) on January 10, 2013, 07:57 PM:
Thanks ...I'm "hearing" all sorts of alternatives..
Armourall wipes ?
Lemon Pledge ?
In my situation, I have films of varying "vintages" and condition !...so, am wondering if (as opposed to doing nothing) there's something that's "benign" (won't do any damage), and will clean up the "junk" before or during the transfer process.?
Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on January 10, 2013, 08:36 PM:
Armourall is silicone.......a big no no.
Posted by Manuel Tapia (Member # 3249) on January 10, 2013, 09:39 PM:
I start use filmguard just one week ago, here are some proof that FG works great !!!
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 11, 2013, 06:34 AM:
eeerrr, can you circle the diffrences?
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 11, 2013, 06:41 AM:
It actually looked sharper before Filmguard.Actually we can see
that the heaviest of the abrasions is reduced.The best at doing
this in my opinion was the old 2.22,that stayed on the film and
continued to hide the light scratches and lubricated the film.
Thermofilm when it was manufactured by Gemini had the same
properties and were relatively cheaper than Filmguard.Some of
these benefits by modern film treatments tend to be short lived.
Posted by Manuel Tapia (Member # 3249) on January 11, 2013, 07:07 AM:
hahahaha, the sharp is because the camara is out of focus, is a point & shoot camera , the most significant different is the lines in the rigth of screen, between donald and the edge of the screen
Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on January 11, 2013, 07:27 AM:
Hugh, 2:22 by Kanus Chemicals was fantastic stuff pity you can't get it now. Filled in light scratches & they disappeared, the deeper one reduced quite a lot too. Still got a tin of the solvent used to clean it off before using tape splices.
The films I treated you can still see & feel it on the film. DCR Films on the IOW used to treat all his releases before sending them out. Stops the green print syndrome of not running smoothly through the projector.
Wonder what the nearest equivalent would be now? Would it be something like Filmguard?
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 11, 2013, 09:32 AM:
I honestly don't know David,but I do miss the 2.22,it also was
anti static and was great for use on vinyls, the "crackle" in the
background disappeared when treated with this stuff, no doubt
the "global warming" mob had something to do with it's demise.
I did hear a tale that the chap who manufactured it died with
the formula, I think banned chemicals could be nearer the truth. Another major loss to the hobby.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 11, 2013, 10:56 AM:
These days I use Thermofilm and Film Renew outside.
[ April 15, 2013, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Lee Mannering ]
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 11, 2013, 11:17 AM:
I don't actually believe 2.22 turned film pink Lee, I have plenty
of filmstock that was treated with it from the '70s like Waltons
"Witchfinder","Years B.C.","Planet/Apes series","Golden Voyage
and the list goes on,with no pinking.Thermofilm used to be very good, but I find it a bit like "the emperors new clothes", very
hard to see, as it evaporates before you get it to the film,obviously
key chemicals have been excluded, leaving not a lot really.Some
years ago, I got a can from DFS,the package had been damaged in transit causing the liquid to escape, it is so volatile
that there was absolutely no smell with the package or in the
Posted by Gerald Santana (Member # 2362) on January 11, 2013, 12:36 PM:
Save a little money and buy some Film Guard or Film Renew from Larry Urabanski, these solutions are going to be your best bet for film cleaning and lubrication. They have been tested and for the most part collectors have been using these (as Manuel shows) to "soften" harsh lines on prints, put on by dirty projectors or protruding projector parts. It will not clear up green lines scratched onto the emulsion.
If you're really low on money, you can use a substitution of 90% Isopropyl (nothing lower)alcohol and a tiny drop of mineral oil. This should not be the replacement solution for what F.G. or F.R. does. This would only be used in an emergency or if times are really tough until your film cleaning of choice arrives. If anything you don't really need to clean the film with cleaning solvents unless necessary.
You can easily by Pec Pads from ebay for $10, cut one sheet into thirds and use that to clean the film without any solution, it will do the job. Do not attempt to use anything else like Armor All, Goo Gone or especially 70% alcohol (the other 30% is water you) on the print, it may ruin the emulsion and it might peel as in the case with water damage. Those are only okay to use on the projector, which should be cleaned after every screening and when necessary.
Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on January 11, 2013, 01:28 PM:
Really frightened me with 2.22 taken to the grave. Died with the formula, I hope it should be the formula died with him. I also used on vinyl, like you say static gone.
Wonder about cleaning & lubricating, I would say use 2 different products. First use a cleaner to get muck off, then lubricate.
I always lubricate my new prints (green print syndrome). Any used prints after checking are cleaned & lubricated.
Never heard that about 2.22 causing prints to turn pink. The only way I could see that happening is due to the print been sealed with the chemical used, and the film cannot breath. This would apply to most treatments I would think.
The 70% alcohol that I use, I drink its called Whiskey
Would always use a proper cleaner/lubricator against some home made stuff.
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 11, 2013, 01:49 PM:
I agree David,too much of this alcohol wasted on film.As for the
legend of 2.22 turning prints pink,they were going to turn anyway
probably nothing to do with them being kept in a heated room
or stored in a loft.I only wish it was still available, it is certainly
a big miss as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on January 13, 2013, 11:26 AM:
I have always used Thermofilm to good effect but used to buy it from Larry Pearce, not sure that it is still available now. Ken Finch.
Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on January 13, 2013, 11:48 AM:
Just to add to the debate I also read on this forum about 2.22 speeding up fading. Not noticed it myself though.
You can read it HERE
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 13, 2013, 02:10 PM:
An old wives tale I think.
Posted by Keith Heydon (Member # 3138) on January 14, 2013, 12:08 AM:
You know, I think this "cleaning" issue falls into 2 (and perhaps 3) categories...
1. cleaning old / questionable /brittle film for projection
2. cleaning old / questionable /brittle film for "transfer" to digital
3. ..and, cleaning the projector ...in particular the gate, and areas around the lens/gate with a view to a satisfactory experience re: 1 and 2 above!
As I've read some of the replies to my original post (which really was related to my objective of transferring a ton of films inherited from family and friends)...because, initially, I've been interested in doing the "telecine" thing myself ...I've concluded:
1. It's critical to have the projector *always* "squeaky" clean to have any hope of generating a decent transfer.
2. Nonwithstanding point #1, and, regardless of the cleanliness of the gate and other components of the projector ...the film itself *has* to be pristine (i.e. clean) to get the best possible image, and to alleviate the ongoing problem of gumming up the optics, gate, etc.
This brings me to yet, another question ...
If I was to outsource the digitizing of my 8mm films (and there are hundreds of companies Google tells me will do it, including "cleaning the film before the transfer") ...now I'm really worried about *what* they're using as a cleaning process on my precious films?
I'm wondering about companies like the big boys (Costco...whom I understand outsource anyway) ...or the "one man band" operations whom do it out of their homes, specifically what they're using to clean/lubricate the film.
Bottom line...is if I use an inappropriate cleaner/lubricant, I'm reading (within this thread) that my film / or the ones which have been entrusted to me could easily be "hooped" forever!
And, again, I'm starting to think if I outsource the digitizing ...I better get a specific answer in terms of the exact process / chemicals used by third parties!
I'm thinking about setting up a survey online:
...with the simple query:
"Your service indicates you clean the film prior to transferring/digitizing. What method / chemicals do you use?"
Am wondering if anyone besides myself would be interested?
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 14, 2013, 03:38 AM:
David. It may not be such a good idea to mix two different chemicals on a film base. If find Thermofilm and Film Renew both very good at cleaning as well. Thermofilm is ideal on Poly stock and for the old Acetate I stick to Film Renew. They sweep as they beat as they clean so to speak!
If you are still using 2.22 folks also keep an eye inside tin as they rust internally which just might get transferred to your films emulsion when cleaning. Net result scratches, and thatís not an old wives tale it happened to me a few years ago now.
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 14, 2013, 05:32 AM:
I shouldn't think that there'll be much 2.22 knocking about now
Lee. it's quite some time since any of that has been seen.If anyones concerned on particles in the liquid,then transfering it
into a clear glass jar would be the solution.Funnily enough,2.22
used to be supplied by Kanus in just that when they first sold it.The valid point I made though, is that 2.22,even though films
treated years ago,still continues to hide minor abrasions,whereas
the modern treatments don't,as for Thermofilm,what does it actually do.it disappears before you can get it to the film, it has
no lasting properties,if any.Filmrenew is gentle and Crestclene
at least lubricates.Remember when Thermofilm was very similar
in consistancy to 2.22. it actually worked.No doubt chemicals
that were valid in its make up have been omitted,as would be
the case with 2.22 if it were still produced,leaving us with a container of liquid that just evaporates, with no visible effects.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 14, 2013, 06:32 AM:
Hi Hugh. Well, the vapours from it should be avoided and as you mention it does dry quickly on the film once applied. I found it a good cleaner/preservative but only use it on poly film as its ability to lubricate is very limited which Iím sure you will know. Seem to remember the advertising slogan was Ďban dirty filmsí and good old Larry used to sell cart loads of the stuff for many years. After applying you will notice a gleam to the film and it leaves a very light coating thereafter which we can see when applying. It was said one application is enough to protect a film for life, whatever the life of a film is. Film Renew is much more of a lubricant/cleaner I find but not excessively so which I use on acetate only as mentioned.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 14, 2013, 11:38 AM:
I was a fan of 222 and swore by it, i have read articles where some people suggested it speeded up fading but i myself didnt believe this, i have films that have faded quicker that never had a drop of 222, in fact if you read the instructions on the back of a can of 222 it stated that it slowed down colour fade. I think its a case of which cleaner one was use to. I now use film guard but with this you do have to be careful not to overdo it. 222 did have a lethal fume which probably explains whats wrong with me now
Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 14, 2013, 01:23 PM:
What's up Tom?
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC