Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: There once was a crappy, dirty, dusty, scratchy print of a modern classic......

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » There once was a crappy, dirty, dusty, scratchy print of a modern classic......

Author

Topic: There once was a crappy, dirty, dusty, scratchy print of a modern classic......

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-13-2001 03:38 AM

Once upon a time I bought a clapped out 16mm print of Raiders Of The Lost Ark from a collector in the USA. It had many flaws... it was dirty, it had multiple base and emulsion scratches and in later years it was also turning.

Then, for its 20th anniversary screening last Saturday night it had a present. I applied a coating of Film Guard to it...

I ran it on Saturday night (which, I will add here, was very successful attendance wise...Paramount have really missed out on this one) and I can't recall how many times I thought throughout it just how f**king good this clapped out filthy print had turned out looking!

It had (in a previous life) two real bug-bears with me...one was a nasty black scratch in the sunset scene as Indy flies away at the start. As you saw the sunset this blasted scratch was there right in the middle of the sun! Then there was the scene at the end as the ark is 'going back to God' through the clouds. Again, a nasty black scratch right slap-bang in the flame.

I really hated that...

And now...guess what? (I know those who have used FG don't really need to guess) Clear! Absolutely clear! Nothing there! How f**king happy was/am I? I'll tell you how f**king happy I was...
I had a beer for Brad.

Even those in the audience not 'in the know' commented how good the print looked. The only blemish now is where the emulsion scratches just go too deep...but that's it. It doesn't even matter now that it's going pink (nowhere near as much as my Star Wars print) It looks fan-f**king-tastic.

Anyone who doubts the effectivness of this product, throw caution to the wind and spend the $35 or whatever it costs for a quart and try it. You will never accept dirty or dusty, scratchy prints again.

Your jaw will drop...

John.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage' - Indiana Jones.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-13-2001 04:17 AM

Rewind the media pads and run it again. It'll pull even more off. That is if the pads aren't too dirty already. But I have run a print with the same media pads for about 5 weeks, 5 shows a day with absolutely no problem. I would resoak the pads once a week, though. Also, I started this when the print was brand new, so there weren't huge chunks of dirt to worry about scratching it. Filmguard really makes you get your money's worth out of the media pads. And the print.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-13-2001 05:28 AM

No, this was a 'hand job'...so to speak. With a rag, not media pads. They were at the time busy keeping my Moulin Rouge print like new.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage' - Indiana Jones.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.