|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Filmguard on archival master elements
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-06-2002 07:34 AM
We have a 1931 diacetate 16mm reversal original which a broadcaster wants to use a section from. The problem is that it's too shrunk and warped to go through a telecine in its current state. It is also very mouldy and has lots of cement splices which will need to be remade.Ordinarily what we'd do in these circumstances is send it to a London facilities house to be ultrasonically cleaned and telecined on a Spirit (which has a very gentle film path). However, that isn't an option within the timescale and budget available. I have used Filmguard on prints (for which we have other master elements) which are in a similar condition before, but never on original or other master status elements. It achieved astonishing results, removing the mould completely, filling in scratches and lubricating the film surface to the point at which it will go through our telecine (a CCD-adapted Fumeo mech) without any problems whatsoever. The quality of the Beta SP transfers I've done this way is also extremely high. However, I am very reluctant to treat an original element, in case this has implications either for long-term preservation or future duplication. This issue was discussed on the AMIA list about a year ago, and a number of people reported difficulties in ultrasonic cleaning after other cleaning solutions (including FG) were used. So I have the following question for Brad, or anyone else who can answer it: will ultrasonic cleaning completely remove all trace of the FG from the film surface? Are there any known adverse reactions between the FG and the cleaning solution (either 1,1,1 or perc)? And if not, can an FG-treated element be contact printed without damaging either it or the printer? Doing this goes against all the preservation guidelines in the book, and is not recommended by any of the main professional bodies in the field (e.g. AMIA, FIAF, FIAT, Image Permanence Institute). However, this broadcaster would really like to use the film, we would make a bit of money from it and it would be great to have it shown. Answers on a postcard please...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-06-2002 07:59 AM
There are no adverse reactions to the cleaner used in the ultrasonic cleaners that I have been informed about (but that doesn't guarantee that what you are using won't). I have tried re-cleaning films with other common cleaners such as VitaFilm and Renovex, etc after cleaning with FG with no problems if that is of any help.As for contact printing, I really couldn't tell you. I don't think anyone has done it. Just to be safe since you are speaking of a one-of-a-kind original element, I would obviously recommend you play with some expendable film to be sure. FilmGuard will evaporate on it's own 6-12 months after application.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-06-2002 02:14 PM
Somewhat tangentially, if there are concerns about FG having longterm effects on original elements (since it seems everyone agrees it has no short-term side effects), the wise choice when treating an original element with FG is to immediately make a protection IP of it.That way, the protection IP can realize the high-quality of the original element, even if that original element then degrades substantially in the far-future (due to unknown long-term FG effects, or other issues). This is assuming that contact-printing the FG-treated original element does not lead to significant transfer of FG to the IP. I guess you could optically print it to avoid that if you were really concerned... I guess this is all out of Leo's budget range from a practical perspective... --jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-06-2002 02:57 PM
Yes, absolutely. We have a very good relationship with a fantastic lab who would have done a wonderful, crisp and sharp dupe from this element using procedures that are sanctioned by film archive professional bodies. But there would have been a cost, both in time and money. On this particular project, we couldn't afford that cost on either count.So I really wanted to get a handle on how big the element of risk was that I was burning my boats, i.e. how likely was I to be compromising my ability to dupe this element using conventional methods later if I treated it with FG now? In particular, I'd overlooked the possibility of FG contaminating the raw stock during contact printing, which John P pointed out, which shows how important it is to ask questions first and act later, and also what an wonderful site this is for asking the questions! The responses both from this forum and from my lab contact led me to believe that the risk was low enough to justify taking it, so I took it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic