How much do 5/70mm and 15/70mm(IMAX) prints cost today ??

[Luca Mancini]

I saw an article where IMAX CEO Gelfond stated that an IMAX print costed $30,000 in the 1990's and I'm wondering if it'll be hitting six figures today ??

[Julian Antos]

Not sure about IMAX, but a two and a half hour 5perf 70mm print will run in the area of $20,000, assuming it’s a “release print” and all the color timing is set.

[Leo Enticknap]

During my time at the American Cinematheque, I was told that striking a new 5/70 Lawrence of Arabia print would cost in the ballpark of $40K, by someone who dealt with FotoKem on a regular basis, so this seems about right. The discussion was in the context of us noting that all the existing ones then in circulation (this was around 2015) were significantly scratched and dirty.

One problem related to that is that there were (and likely still are) no ultrasonic cleaning machines in existence that can run 70mm (65 yes, 70 no). PTRs and media pad cleaning approaches (e.g. FilmGuard) are the only available method to clean a 5/70 print. So while ultrasonic cleaning is a pricey, though viable way to clean a uniquely valuable 35mm projection print (e.g. an absolutely gorgeous IB print from the '50s that has gotten very dirty), it's not an option for 70.

[Brad Miller]

One problem related to that is that there were (and likely still are) no ultrasonic cleaning machines in existence that can run 70mm (65 yes, 70 no). PTRs and media pad cleaning approaches (e.g. FilmGuard) are the only available method to clean a 5/70 print. So while ultrasonic cleaning is a pricey, though viable way to clean a uniquely valuable 35mm projection print (e.g. an absolutely gorgeous IB print from the '50s that has gotten very dirty), it's not an option for 70.

Actually that's incorrect. We have 8 highly upgraded ultrasonic cleaners running perchloroethylene in our lab which can run 8mm, Super 8mm,16mm or 35mm.
2 of those machines can also run 65mm OR 70mm.

[Steve Guttag]

I knew it was a bad week to stop sniffing "Perc."

[Leo Enticknap]

Especially if you've built up a natural immunity to carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1,trichloroethane. I knew someone who hoarded dozens of 40-gallon drums of the latter under the seating riser of a university lecture theatre (unbeknown to the college's authorities!) just before it was banned, asserting that perc simply does not do as good a job. That was around 25 years ago: I wonder if he's gone through it all by now.

Brad - interesting. The guy I was discussing this with back in 2015 or '16 was 100% certain that there were no ultrasonic cleaners that could run 70 in the LA metro, and 99% certain that there were none in the country. Good to know that you have that facility. For a print that is very dirty but does not have significant scratching (or other damage), that would likely be a far cheaper option than replacing the print, and almost as good.

[Jim Cassedy]

I worked at a film lab here in SF in the late 1980's & early 90's. We had one of those Lipsner-Smith ultrasonic
film cleaners. It was literally in its' own little hermetically sealed room which company policy said you had to
leave when the machine was in operation. I remember reading all the dire health warnings on those big 44gal
drums of cleaner. The warnings said something like "prolonged exposure may cause blindness, hair loss, lung
damage,, skin lesions, loss of muscle control .etc, etc, ...and death" I remember thinking that after all the other
side effects, death would almost be a welcome experience. That being said, the machine worked great, and
they often let me run some of my own films through it at no charge.

[Randy Stankey]

I remember reading all the dire health warnings on those big 44gal drums of cleaner.

I was recently walking through by the loading dock at work where there was a barrel of deionized water. I glanced down and spotted the label on the side and almost broke out laughing. Yes, I know that those warning labels are basically boilerplate but, if a person didn't know that they'd probably be pretty confused by the warning labels on a drum of water.

[Frank Angel]

When I was a kid (mid-20s) I ordered gallon cans of 1,1,1, Trichlorathane and used it on everything that needed cleaned. I am sure I have at least 2 gal cans of it left in that booth. I even used it in a sprayer can attached to the air compressor and sprayed it to clean the operating side of the XLs, essentially atomizing it into a fine spray in the opened air and me not wearing any face mask or other protective gear. No one ever told me it could be a really bad thing to do. Then of course using it to clean goop off film, it came in direct contact with my skin for extended periods. One day my assistant said he had heard it was a really dangerous substance so we stared wearing heavy duty face masks so as not to breath it in, at least when we were spraying it, but not when using it on cloth to clean film. So for about ten years I was breathing that stuff and having it absorb thru my skin, and here I am all these years, still alive and still pretty damn healthy for an 81 yrs old. I am not saying it is not harmful, but maybe some of us were indeed lucky to have some sort of immunity to it. If it were a direct cause and effect link to cancer (as they said), I would be long gone.