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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » filmguard vs. PTRs (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: filmguard vs. PTRs Robert Edgecomb Film Handler Posts: 7 From: St. Louis, MO, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 04-11-2004 10:27 PM                     Hi all, I have been projectionist for a very short time and I have recentely been told to switch from filmguard media cleaners to PTRs. This does not seem to me to be a smart movie being PTRs just seem to be reactionary but filmguard is preventitive. Have PTRs or filmguard been shown to damage prints? Which is better? I am sure people all have their different beliefs but I want to know. Please let me know. Rob  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 04-11-2004 10:37 PM                     I think I hear Dan Lyons coming to complain about this one too.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-11-2004 11:02 PM                     I much prefer the FilmGuard! Once the dirt is off the film and onto the gauze media it's gone for good. Never does dirty media touch film. With particle transfer rollers the dirt comes off the film, sticks to the roller and goes round and round. The dirt gets pressed against the film again and again. If the roller gets loaded with dirt it can be pressed back onto the film again. If you don't keep the rollers clean between shows you could have problems keeping the film clean. Of course, with PTRs you don't get the scratch hiding, anti-static and lubrication effects that makes FilmGuard so good. One more thing to remember! If you have FilmGuarded a print don't run it through a PTR system! The oily properties of the FilmGuard will likely cause trouble with the sticky properties of the PTRs.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-12-2004 02:05 AM                     quote: filmguard is preventitive I think that's the important point. PTRs may work well in film labs, but theatres are a different situation. Most of the dust found on a print is generated in the projector itself. PTRs will remove the dust but won't prevent more dust from being generated, and won't prevent abrasive deposits from building up in the gate, as Film-Guard does. Also, as Randy pointed out, PTRs can quickly become overloaded. Media cleaners are the fastest way for a theatre to clean a dirty print. The only exception is Imax theatres, whose rolling loop mechanisms are incompatible with Film-Guard; they do use PTRs to good effect. (However, I'm now wondering why they don't use media cleaners dry, at all.)  |  IP: Logged Dan Lyons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 698 From: Seal Beach, CA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 04-12-2004 02:29 AM                     Did I hear someone calling my name?? Robert, Look to your left and click on the "reviews" button. You'll find out all you want to know about PTRs. Also, do a few searches for PTRs; you'll end up with all your questions answered. Who on earth told you to switch to PTRs?? danny  |  IP: Logged Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 04-12-2004 08:19 AM                        I currently use PTR rollers and feel if you use them every show, they work very well indeed. If you only run them once a day or some site once a week, they do get loaded up with all the dirt and become in effective. I use film guard to clean old logos, and on prints that shed alot of dust, I coat the edges of the film with film guard when making the print up. This also way is ok to use with PTR rollers once the film has been run twice. The PTR's are still perfect. Darren  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-12-2004 10:21 AM                    I've always found that particle transfer rollers are great at exactly what their name implies... transferring particles from one part of the film to another. Sounds to me like someone is trying to save a few bucks.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-12-2004 10:32 AM                        PTRs work fine _if_ you start with a new or very clean print and use them for every show. They need to be cleaned and replaced for every show, too. Under those conditions, PTRs are useful for keeping new prints looking new. They are useless for old, ratty prints. FG and media cleaners do this, too, but are also effective at cleaning up lousy prints and hiding scratches. Given the choice and operators who can be trained to deal with the media cleaners, I'd take FG+media cleaner over PTRs.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-12-2004 12:45 PM                        Another point: It actually takes MORE time to clean the PTR rollers than it does to rewind the media pads between shows. How many PTR users are faithful about cleaning the rollers between EVERY show? FG might cost a bit more to use but it probably balances out with the time saved (not only on the cleaning of PTRs, but on cleaning projectors) and on-screen quality improvement. I am still amazed at the amount of gunk that comes off even a slightly used print when we FG it.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-12-2004 01:00 PM                        Kodak introduced PTR film cleaning technology in 1989. I presented two SMPTE papers. PTRs are effective film cleaners and do not redeposit dirt, as long as they are not overloaded with so much dirt that the tacky surface is covered. As Scott notes, a really filthy print will overload the PTR. In our tests, it required several passes to clean a really dirty print. Although washing with water and detergent is the best way to remove any buildup, many have found that a "see-saw" with a piece of low stick artist's tape will quickly remove any accumulation of debris from the PTR. PTR's are especially useful when you do not want to put anything on the film. So they are widely used for cleaning raw stock, printing originals, films being transferred to video, and for films that come into direct contact with optics (e.g., IMAX prints). PTRs are very low risk to the film, as they are very soft and have a "rolling contact" with the film. In our testing, we sprinkled sandpaper grit on PTRs and ran camera negative over the grit-laden PTRs several times without scratching, indenting, or damaging the negative. You would never dare do this with a dry media cleaner, as the abrasive particles would scratch the film.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 01:20 PM                     Any theater that has a booth environment THAT dirty doesn't stand a chance at a good presentation anyway, John. I have never seen a PTR do what I would call a truly effective job. Others have disagreed with me...UNTIL they saw what their presentation COULD look like. This is why so many people roll their eyes at others who claim their PTR presentations are so flawless. They don't know what they are missing. I have never had a case where a projectionist who was a fan of PTRs wasn't completely amazed when he saw a media/FG presentation and promptly threw the PTRs in the trash and went the media/FG route. PTRs are great for labs and such and they look spectacular on paper, but are pretty much useless in the field. Plus every run they have they get less and less effective. Not so with the media cleaner.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-12-2004 01:25 PM                        There's an old saying: "Different horses for different courses".  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 01:27 PM                     Say what you want John, but it was you who commented that the Titanic print you saw at Northpark which was media/FG was the best presentation you had seen. We received the print used with light scratches on it too...but I'll bet you didn't see those on the screen. FilmGuard may not be a Kodak product, but you were damned impressed that day and you can't deny it.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-12-2004 01:34 PM                        There are applications where you can't use FilmGuard, such as contact printing where if it gets transferred from the printing original to the raw stock, it will affect the processing. Likewise IMAX prints that come into direct contact with the field lens. Remember, like FilmGuard, PTRs were developed to address the deficiencies and risks of film cleaning with dry media. BTW, when I saw "Titanic" in 70mm and visited the Northpark booth in February 1998, Ron did NOT make a point of showing any use of FilmGuard. I know it was still under development at the time. Was it used for every showing, or just as needed?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2004 01:51 PM                     Re: Northpark - other than the showing you attended, Titanic was passed through FG on every show and those scratches disappeared after a few runs. Ron took the media cleaner off of the platter and locked it up in the cabinets when he found out a Kodak guy was in the building per our agreement to keep it completely private until it's release. I just missed you too at the shift change. (Your business card remained on our corkboard until the theater closed.)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.