my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » cleaning old 35mm print (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: cleaning old 35mm print Christopher Woollard Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Dovercourt, Harwich, England Registered: May 2004 posted 11-10-2019 02:39 AM                     We have an old 35mm (1970's) print in generally good condition except it is marked with what appear to be remnants of a film cleaner/preserver throughout, possibly a very old application of filmguard. Very obvious when screening. We have the kelmar machine and wonder what would be the best impregnation to use. Possibly saturate the tapes with filmguard the day before cleaning and run through a couple of times? Use isopropanol instead? How about both of these approaches. Any experience of remedying this most welcome. We do not have access to a lipsner smith film cleaning machine which would be my first choice. We are London based.  |  IP: Logged Sascha F. Roll Expert Film Handler Posts: 140 From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany Registered: Sep 2015 posted 11-10-2019 02:53 AM                     I doubt that these are leftovers of Filmguard - so far I have never encounteres any negative after effects of FG, even years after application. It just seems to evaporate.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Woollard Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Dovercourt, Harwich, England Registered: May 2004 posted 11-11-2019 03:50 AM                     I do not know how or with what this print was treated, obviously done on a platter as the intermediate leaders are not affected. I thought possibly filmguard because of its smell.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-11-2019 07:29 AM                        Without a more detailed description and/or a photo of the visible artifacts, it is difficult to speculate what they could be, but I will do so anyways, and opine that the contaminant is more likely to be projector oil than a cleaning product. The only cleaning or preservative process I am aware of that is known to cause visible defects over time is Scotchgard/Photogard, and this will also cause deformation (curling and/or cupping) of the film base. If it is projector oil, the only treatment that stands a good chance of getting most of it off without causing any damage to the emulsion is ultrasonic cleaning, rewashing, and (if the film base is acetate or nitrate; not polyester) polishing. You indicate that this isn't an option in your case. Unless the deposits are flaking off, PTRs are unlikely to help. A pass through media pads impregnated with Filmguard certainly can't hurt. Depending on the type of release print stock involved (and especially if it's b/w), IPA (by which I mean isopropyl alcohol, not India pale ale!) could, especially if it's denatured rather than pure. In some jurisdictions, alcohol not intended for drinking has to have stuff added to it that makes it undrinkable (i.e. it provokes a gag reflex if you try to drink it) in order to be exempt from booze duty. In California at any rate, IPA that has been so treated is labeled "denatured." These additives can leave deposits on anything you try to clean with the stuff: it often won't evaporate without leaving a trace.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Woollard Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Dovercourt, Harwich, England Registered: May 2004 posted 11-11-2019 09:58 AM                     Thank you Leo, Perhaps the following: Multiple passes (perhaps as many as ten) through the kelmar using filmguard impregnated tapes. Then several passes using virgin tapes impregnated with isopropyl alcohol, we have this very high purity. This is an almost zero cost route for us. If the above does not resolve matters the print will have to be ultrasonically cleaned when the budget can be found.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-11-2019 12:53 PM                        I can't think of any way this could make the print worse, unless the unknown contaminant has affected the emulsion such that the IPA removes the emulsion along with the contaminant. Once you get to the IPA passes, if it were me, I'd stop after, say, the first 50 feet of the first reel, and look at it carefully for any sign of any ill effects.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Woollard Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Dovercourt, Harwich, England Registered: May 2004 posted 11-11-2019 01:15 PM                     Well, I can always try simple virgin kelmar tape without the IPA I thought of IPA because Kodak mention it as a somewhat effective film cleaner being an alternative to compounds now banned which were superior.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 11-14-2019 10:16 PM                     I like the ideas posted above. I'm no expert but purely from a soil cleaning point of view, I would personally run in the following order 1- dry media run to absorb the excess oil/mystery cleaner 2- IPA to actually clean the oil off and leave a clean slate 3- Filmguard to condition/protect/perfect  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-15-2019 06:56 AM                     quote: Leo Enticknap IPA (by which I mean isopropyl alcohol, not India pale ale!) could, especially if it's denatured rather than pure. Isopropyl Alcohol does not need to be "Denatured." It isn't drinkable in natural form (and you should seek it in as pure as possible, not in the rubbing varieties which just add water to the mix). Most "Pure" anhydrous IPA are 99%. What Leo is thinking of is Ethanol (Ethyl Alcohol), which IS drinkable and needs to be denatured if to be sold as a chemical and not subject to the various liquor laws.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2019 08:35 AM                     It's most likely residue fomr oil that got on the print. Its easily possible with certain projectors. Perc will clean it off easily and Perc is the common ingredient of brake cleaner. However, only use it outside!! https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/perchloroethylene/ Mark  |  IP: Logged Christopher Woollard Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Dovercourt, Harwich, England Registered: May 2004 posted 11-16-2019 12:15 AM                     How do you use Perc? Neat or dilute with water. Soak pads and pull through? Given its very nasty nature and our terrible weather, it will have to wait until spring.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-16-2019 03:04 AM                     Perc isn't THAT nasty. It's NFPA "Fire Diamond" is 2-0-0 "Health" = 2 - Intense or continued but not chronic exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury (e.g. diethyl ether, ammonium phosphate, iodine) "Fire" = 0 - Will not burn under normal conditions. "Reactivity" = 0 - Will not react unpredictably under normal conditions. Although it can make you sick it won't cause lasting injury unless you get a lot of it in your system. It's main method of action on humans is through inhalation of vapors or absorption through skin. Use it outdoors or in a place where there is excellent ventilation. Wear Nitrile gloves and an apron while using it. Be careful not to spill more than a nominal amount. Small spills will evaporate on their own in a few minutes. For large spills, treat it as you would paint thinner or similar things. Wipe and absorb spills, place in a safe container and dispose of responsibly. Most or all of it will evaporate. One of its main uses in business and industry is as a dry cleaning solvent for clothes. When you take your clothes to the dry cleaner, that's what they use. It's not "Methyl-Ethyl-Bad-Shit" but, as long as you respect it for the industrial solvent that it is you should have no problems.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-16-2019 08:04 PM                        These chemicals went out of use for film cleaning not so much because of their immediate danger to human health, but because of their environmental nastiness. Until the mid-1990s, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane was the methyl-ethyl-bad-shit of choice for ultrasonic film cleaners (when they were first invented in the early '70s, they used carbon tetrachloride, but by the mid-1980s, most were using 1,1,1 because it was less of a direct poison risk to the operator). Then for some environmental reason (could be because it attacked the ozone layer, I can't remember), it was banned for all except a tiny number of uses, at which point ultrasonic film cleaning started to use perc. I gather that there are now environmental objections to perc, too.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-16-2019 08:48 PM                     I don't think the problem with Perc is ozone depletion. As I remember, it is something like 200 times LESS potent than Freon. I think that one of its main problems in the environment is bioaccumulation...its half-life is something like 6 months and one of its decomposition byproducts is Phosgene. The other thing that I remember is that there have been some studies that suggest that percloroethylene can cause cancer but it's one of those things that hasn't been definitively confirmed. I think it's one of those "some studies show that Substance-X causes cancer in laboratory rats" things. I would say that the main risk, there, is from occupational or industrial exposure. People who work in factories where they are frequently exposed will probably be at risk while the average person who is exposed infrequently will have no risk if they use it properly. I don't have a problem with "chemicals," per se, as long as one respects them. If I handed you a loaded pistol, you might pick it up and say, "Nice gun. Is it loaded?" But, if I handed you a sealed jar full of sodium cyanide, most people would probably freak out. As long as they are each handled with due diligence and respect there shouldn't be any difference between the two. Right? Same thing with perchloroethylene. Learn the facts. Use due caution. No problem.  |  IP: Logged Simon Wyss Film Handler Posts: 80 From: Basel, BS, Switzerland Registered: Apr 2011 posted 11-18-2019 02:11 AM                     I should give it two passes. The first is to degrease, so a cleaning machine run. Second should be a water wash-drying cycle on a film processor. Labs do that, surely not all. Make sure drying temperature is not too high.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.