Something else I noticed from reading this thread here and the identical post over on Film Tech, is that Martin received no such torrent of complaints from members via Vidar or Robert regarding any suggestions of cross posting threads.

This is excellent news I feel and if keen collectors want maximum exposure to a thread that contains important information for many many different collectors, what on earth could ever be possibly wrong with that?

In the past here, some individuals obsessions to try and spot any possible interpretation of this happening has caused no end of needless fuss and unnecessary trouble at times.

I am pleased to see things have settled down here so far as all of these kind of negative activities are concerned and what really matters are that people are prepared to post whatever they like in the interest of all of our genuine film collectors and lovers of here and elsewhere.

Well done Martin.😊🔟

In answer to Robert question, nothing at all, although I do have a half full or half empty tin of 2.22 left purchased from Derann. Not seen the need to use it on any of the films I have or projected. I just think there is wide spread hysteria over this subject, if you have a film that doesn't project properly for whatever reason, its nearly always in my case a mechanical fault with the film, no amount of "waxing" the film would help, or a fault in the film path guides. It reminds me of the story of a company moving premises and all the stock must go, once its gone it gone, so like hoards of locusts everything gets bought up, only a few months later we find the stocks of sound heads suddenly reappear, as if by magic. I'm sure you think it doing some good by coating the film, then that's great for you, you put the stuff on to hide the scratches, but they are still there, who you kidding, if I see one of my films with this stuff on, I think what's the seller trying to hide from me, it does not appear to project any better or sound superior to any other film I have.......

Good points, Paul. I only use FG to hide base scratches on secondhand prints I've bought which have seen better days. It does actually mask them, for a while, at least. I've also discovered that some black base lines are sometimes just micro-lines of dirt, and not necessarily damaged prints, in which case FG is a godsend for dealing with those too. As Kodak rammed home in their white papers, film prints will always attract dirt, no matter how clean professionals kept their labs, booths or projector paths.

Andrew, I think the point people were making with cross-posting is that some people were referring to questions posed on 8mm Forum and then answering them here on Reel Magic, so members would have to circle back to the other to find and understand the subject. I've only made the same post on 8mm Forum because I hope what I had to say was useful to both audiences, even though some members are common to both.

Thanks Paul. Lubricating does make the film run a lot quieter; also I lubricate to prevent any perforation damage, which seems easier with 16mm. I think the complaints about cross threading occur when we refer to posts on the other forum; there haven't been any complaints about members posting the same story or reviews of films, like Tom does in both forums. As a member of more than one, he's entitled to do that. We don't make a habit of repeating stories that appear in any of the other forums, it's a rare occurrence, but I think it's bound to happen at some time; just as we will come across a story online or in a newspaper that needs mentioning. The complainers can't seem to grasp that there is nothing in our rules that prevents any mention of other internet sites. They really have no idea what goes on here, as most of the sections are closed to non members. They don't want to join us, but no doubt visit the site several times a day to read the latest. I don't think we should concern ourselves with the complaints of outsiders.

Yes, must say I do like the lubricating and quiet running properties of FG too. You somehow feel comfortable your films are being protected.

Paul,..

There is simply no comparison between the manner in which film glides through the gate using substances such as FG versus those of either untreated film or film treated with a solvent based cleaner.
The noise of the film as it passes the claw in the gate is a fraction of what it otherwise is on ANY machine and image stability is improved by this silk like projection motion as a result.
Base line scratches I agree ARE only ever masked but this masking hides them completely while coated and if it makes a film even more presentable as a result, what could possibly be wrong with that?
It isn't possibly a substance to "hide" any film nasties as it can of course do nothing at all to help with the things which cause collector's the most concern which of course are things like emulsion scratches and lasting print marks and other lab defects etc.

Martin,..

You are correct in your observations for some of the initial complaints that this forum received from certain members of it, but by the finish it was any type of cross posting that was repeatedly complained about, even those just the same as your own!
I agree entirely with the reasons you give for doing so, so once again I applaud you for doing so at the appropriate times for yourself irrespective of what some members of the forums may say of it.

It can only be a good thing to inform as many people as possible.

As I've said on many occasions, both forums contain plenty of their own unique threads and posts so any argument that we may as well just merge as one is a completely nonsensical one and one that contains no substance whatsoever.

I disagree Andrew, I cannot see how you can know this knowing all the machine noise going on in background, how this can make it quieter through the gate or more stable if used is purely your own judgment, I don't hear or see these differences on my beaulieu ,and this is a machine serviced and setup by Bill just before I purchased it from Kevin Clark, you may have convinced yourself of this, to justify the very high cost of the product, I remain unconvinced......

The noise levels are reduced drastically Paul, not just on the Beaulieu but also on my other machines too, especially the already quiet Bauer and Eumig S938 models. They really do actually run much smoother when freshly coated with FG and no doubt other similar products also.
Granted, it doesn't have the same impact regarding the gate noise levels on any of the ST 1200's i have owned nor really the SH 30 but this is simply because they are far noisier to begin with and unlike some of the others i have mentioned, much of the noise isn't just derived from the gate areas on these.

I have placed a number of videos on Vimeo posted here that show just how quiet the machines can run at with the films coated well so that would give you an idea of what i mean, but what I haven't yet done is posted any video showing side by side comparisons with or without films coated Paul. I will try to get onto that one soon.
This would then make it completely obvious of the differences between the two methods of projection, with and without freshly applied lubricant.

Even if this product was tuppence ha'penny at Lidl, I'd still sing it's praises Paul, knowing just how effective it is in use.
I am not influenced by it's extortionate price point in any way, I am just not deterred by it either, if it works.
A bit like Creed aftershave in that respect!

This video shows what I am saying Paul, especially on the quiet sections of the soundtracks. It is unusual to see one of these anywhere on video operating at these machine noise levels based on my own searches of these things.

https://vimeo.com/228517242

The Bauer runs even quieter and possibly smoother too using the same films seen here, so it's no myth or figment of my imagination Paul.

I've never used Filmguard, but whatever I have used has always made the film run quieter through the machine. In my early days of buying films, some of them were quite brittle, and I had part of the tail of one Mountain film break off where it was bent to go into the take up spool. Lubrication used to make the films more pliable after a couple of days I noticed; this was using 2.22. The back of the tin states that the film will run through the gate at an even tension, reducing the risk of breakage. I think lubrication is absolutely essential.

Just found this old information put out by Kodak.
Lubrication

All motion-picture films destined for projection are required some level of lubrication. The lubricant incorporated in some 8 mm or 16 mm films may be sufficient, even after processing. Since all films may not be lubricated, it should be done to assure a smoother projection. Most laboratories do apply a lubricant when necessary. Caution: Solvent film cleaners or lubricants require adequate ventilation and avoidance of prolonged contact with skin. If these precautions cannot be met, employ a professional firm to clean and lubricate the films. Also, local municipal codes must be strictly adhered to in using and disposing of any solvents.

Theatrical 35 mm release prints require considerably higher levels of lubrication to provide trouble-free performance during projection nuns. Since the required amount of lubricant is excessive for overall application, it is applied to the perforated film edges only on the emulsion side. During windup, some of the lubricant transfers to the film edges on the support side. The edge-wax solution consists of 50 grams of paraffin wax dissolved into 1 1itre of inhibited 1.1.1 Trichloroethane and is usually applied by a special edge-waxing machine. For more information, refer to the SMPTE Recommended Practice, RP151-1989, Lubricatlon, Print.

Let's not also forget, FilmGuard was designed for the professional Cinema and for 35mm prints to keep them scratch free throughout the duration of their screening life. It gave professional prints a longer serviceable life and increased runs from the very same prints and the lubrication properties of the product allowed them to run smoother.

The product is therefore no David Harvey Thomas invention tested and created in somebody's pantry. It is a recognized universally accepted one and was at one time, an extensively used product throughout the globe in professional cinemas when film projectors were the only method to watch a movie upon.

Why anybody would choose to buy expensive prints and then choose not to view them looking and projecting to the very highest standards possible, is quite frankly,..completely beyond me.

I still won't put the stuff on my films to make the projector run quieter, and as you say used by professional cinemas and 35mm, all going digital, no wonder it's such a high price, probably can't sell any to the local flicks now, because there ain't non, or very few, getting rid of the stock pile at stupid prices to any one who's daft enough to pay the price. I doubt your films look better on the screen because of film guard,, or sound or run better than mine do, maybe I've lucky with who I've bought my films off, or maybe its a good bit of sales talk ......

They do Paul.
The evidence above all backs this up, but it's your choice of course Paul.

It is because of the very nicest of prints left remaining, why this stuff is so valued by just so many cine enthusiasts,..to help keep them that way, looking consistently their very very best.

Another point often overlooked, films and film paths that are well lubricated will also cause far less wear to the magnetic heads and other associated parts, especially for projection of pasted striped films. so In a way the substance almost pays for itself when you consider the price and availability of new stereo magnetic sound heads nowadays.

Anyhow, you can only lead a horse to water as they say.

I've no intention of drinking from the poison challis, you may have discovered a challenger to the water dispersant 40, spray it any thing that clonks or squeaks, including your precious prints.......

I'm lost Paul sorry, no idea what any of that means??

FG certainly makes the prints we run through the Elf a lot quieter, its not making the projector itself quieter just helps the film glide through the gate quieter and definatly more steadier on the image.

I agree with what you say there Tom based on seeing the product in action on Super 8mm projectors.

Obviously it cannot silence any machine beyond what it sounds like without running any film through it, but it does on my own at least, keep the running noise of the film through the gate to an absolute minimum as I feel I demonstrated in the earlier video.

As I said, whenever I've seen any other videos of these, there is always that definitive pronounced sound from the claw and gate very much present and prevalent at all times.
This is really minimal on the one I posted and enables a much more enjoyable experience while using the machine in the same room as you are viewing the film, something I'm forced to do in our small house and something therefore that carries quite a significant weight of importance to a collector like myself.

Projecting from a booth or a separate dedicated cinema room, this perhaps doesn't carry anything like the same degree of importance when evaluating just what factors are the most important to you for your screenings.
These things are very circumstantial and differ from one collector to another.

At night time late on, it is even more important in my case to keep the noise down to an absolute minimum to allow me to continue enjoying the hobby in the manner that I do.

Have to say there Andy, although i do have a dedicated room , the projector is not hidden away at all. I have always sat next to projector and the audience in in front of me, (obviously), but a separate projection room isn't something thats ever bothered me.

It's something no doubt, that we'd all love to have one day, a combination of the two, but we have what we have Tom, and with it we work out what fits our requirements accordingly.

I don't think I will be using ear defenders any time soon because of the lack of film guard not being used on any of my prints, keep drinking the water gents if you like the taste ......

Still no idea of what one half of that response implies Paul sorry.
Perhaps you should elaborate please.

I only use FG, (222 in the past), to clean a film and protect it,
As it happens, i read, more than once, in Derann lists/booklets, that they always recommended coating/cleaning brand new prints before first showing to lubricate and coat the film.
The quieter run through the gate ,(for me), is just an added bonus, i dont clean films to make them run quieter, i do it if they need a clean.

I personally don't believe running film bone dry has an advantages whatsoever either Tom.
I agree that the reduction in noise levels (if any, as it may not always be the case on all machines), is only an additional bonus on top.
As said, it probably carries a greater weight of importance for somebody in my own position that it does enable quieter projection through the gate on my own machines than it would do for many other collectors, that I fully understand.

I just also feel that a slick running film is also one that brings about the most stable of images on large screens from the tiny frame as you have now also found Tom, and as well as many many others have also conceded over the years.

I doubt we can all be that far wrong or deluded Tom.

My main reason for lubricating my prints now is to prevent or reduce the risk of any perforation damage in prints that have some nasty cement splices. Back in the 60s Peak Films used to wax their films, I don't know if others did that.

My first ever magnetic sound projector came with a cloth impregnated in silicone.
In the instruction manual it stressed the need to pre coat the films prior to use by running the films through the cloth.
It worked admirably.

Just not as well as FilmGuard does! 😂😂😂

Brut vs Creed by comparison. 😂😂

Yes, and Robert makes the point well about the lubrication benefit. The quiet running is a bonus, but it suggests that the film itself is enduring less wear and friction as it passes through the projector, and almost certainly prolonging the life of sprocket holes and edges.