It may be possible.
Try contacting these people:
http://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/technical_services.html
or someone local of equal standing.

Great article on film restoration here BTW:
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/summer04/patriot.cfm

Some information here:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2008/02/msg00270.html

Two processes can be used Redimension and Rehumid:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2008/02/msg00241.html

Read carefully, this appears to be a one shot process. You may find archivists with the gear and the expertise to do it for you.

Bob.

Thanks Guys. I'll check out these leads and let you know what I finally try.

(No, it's not smelling like vinegar, yet. Just dry and brittle.

Bob,

Really interesting links. I enjoyed reading about restoration of "The Patriot," and also those two links to the Stanford site. From what I read, the film can absorb far more moisture than I thought possible, and that may be sufficient to get Steve to where he wants to go.

Steve, I wish you still lived close by because I would offer to have you use my Workprinter. It has two advantages in your situation: first, it handles the film (except for the pulldown claw) without any sprockets, and therefore is quite gentle. Second, I have the original (almost the first model) that Roger Evans produced, and it only runs at about 4 fps and this definitely is much gentler on the film.

One of the old formula seems to be acetone and camphor.
Both are pretty safe and easy to obtain.
Steve could try putting that mixture in the bottom of a glass laboratory desiccator and sit the film on top of the stainless steel gauze with the lid on. Over time the film absorbs the camphor which certainly was used as plasticiser in some plastics. The process could take weeks if not more.

Bob.

From what I read, the water (humidifier) approach seems safer and longer lasting, and less likely to make the film deteriorate. I think, based on reading the article, I'd try that first, and only use the acetone if the steam bath failed.

I'll try them all. One of the reels is an old Woody Woodpecker cartoon that I can experiment with.

Where can I get Camphor?

John, don't be surprised if I take you up on the offer. The films are that valuable to me. First, I'll have to find the best formula to make them more supple.

Steve

Don't know where to get camphor.

As for using my Workprinter, I'll be happy to do the film, but you will need to get it to the point where you can at least thread it into your projector and then, if you have a manual advance mechanism, you will need to be able to advance the film by hand and have several feet go through without breakage or tearing. The workprinter is still a projector and the film has to go through the usual bends and turns. Also, while there are no sprockets for advancing the film through the projector (the units Roger uses have a series of "paddles" that nudge the film along, something that was done so that the same unit can handle both 8mm and Super8 film), this projector does still use the traditional "claw" to pulldown the film through the gate, and this is still a fairly "violent" action, even at 4 fps.

I just looked again at the various sites where people have detailed their flatbed movie film scanning devices, and while the theory is sound, actually doing it looks like it would be 1-2 hours for each 50 feet of film.

"Where can I get Camphor?"

Try your local chemist / drug store / pharmacy.
Also check Wikipedia, there's quite a few forms. No clue as to which ones are suitable, possibly all of them. Maybe go for the edible one, if it doesn't work you can throw what you don't use into your next curry :)

Bob.

You can eat this stuff? Yucch!

You can eat this stuff? Yucch!

You probably have your self, or at least "digested" it through your skin. It's in many anti-congestive cold remedies, for example Vicks rubs. I love the smell and the taste, but then again I am Norwegian.

Vicks ... we used to put that in a little cup that was part of an old-fashioned steamer and then breathe the fumes. Sounds like an opium den, I guess. Didn't know about the Norwegian fascination with the stuff.

Sorry to say that you're screwed with these, Steve. This is something that should have been done 20-30 years ago at least.

Even the major studios have had this happen, and they're a little more diligent than you have been. Once it's in the state it is, there's nothing that can be done.

Steve, I wish you still lived close by because I would offer to have you use my Workprinter. It has two advantages in your situation: first, it handles the film (except for the pulldown claw) without any sprockets, and therefore is quite gentle. Second, I have the original (almost the first model) that Roger Evans produced, and it only runs at about 4 fps and this definitely is much gentler on the film.

John, I know you have talked in more detail about the equipment and techniques you have refined for capturing old "home movie" film. Have you published any detailed descriptions or photos of the equipment on a web page? If not, maybe it would be good.

I know you have spent a huge amount of time and effort on perfecting details of this film to video stuff.

I have a friend who had his Vietnam footage captured to digital a while ago, and I suspect it could be done better.

Although this is slightly related it may be better in another thread. Will inform here if any changes.

If you are willing to contact me off thread: rex_sony at xertech dot net -- is there a better way to share this email stuff?

I have transferred ~20,000' of 8mm, super 8, and super 8 sound color and B&W dating back to 1939 using Roger Evan's WorkPrinter. You can find his equipment http://www.moviestuff.tv/. Roger is one amazing fellow, an expert in film transfer and great to work with.

Ed B

I agree that purchasing one of Roger's units is the way to go. You can generally get almost all of your money back when you are finished by selling the unit on eBay. They usually go for more than $1,000.

As for me publishing what I've done, I have posted extensively here and in other forums around the web (I always use the same "handle," which is my real name). I have never, however, put any of it on a web page for the reason that I have no desire to go into business. That is what Roger Evans does. I have emailed and phoned him many times and freely given him all my ideas and techniques. He has actually taken a few of them, improved on them with some wonderfully clever additional ideas, and incorporated them into his own units.

If you want to simply digitize the old home movies, then the simplest thing is to just videotape the screen. You can improve on this a little by using one of those rear screen projection units. You can improve further still if you can get a telephoto lens for your projector which may allow you to simply point the camera directly at the projector and tape the result, although you will need to dim the bulb or use an ND filter.

If you do this simple method of transfer, use a 1/60 or 1/50 (PAL) shutter speed, and adjust (if you can) the speed of the projector slightly to minimize the flicker. The flicker is caused by the projector shutter being open for different periods of time during each video frame. You can purchase projectors that have 5-bladed shutters so that the shutter opens/closes four times while each frame is projected (the fifth blade covers the film pulldown). Thus, the difference in light intensity for a video frame that happens to capture while the shutter closes three times will not be too much different from a frame where the shutter only closes twice. With a three bladed shutter, you can have a 2:1 or even bigger difference in intensity between frames. This all happens because there is no way, with off-the-shelf equipment, to synchronize the video camera with the film projector.

Using this method, you will end up with some video frames which contain a blend of one frame of film and another frame of film. This problem, along with the shutter flicker, is why this method produces less than perfect results. By contrast, the Rank Cintel method, which the Workprinter approximates, gives you one frame of film onto one frame of video. You then either play each video frame for the appropriate length of time (i.e., slow it down) -- something that is easy to do when playing back on your computer because all you have to do is change the playback header -- or, if you have to play back to a monitor that only accepts one playback rate, like an NTSC monitor, you add extra fields (not frames) in what is called pulldown (strange term). This actually works really well and preserves the film feel, even when shown on an interlaced monitor.

With all these new HD monitors, most of which can display progressive footage, and with connections which permit playback of pretty much any speed footage, you can probably construct a system that would let you take your Workprinter 18fps video and play it back with no additional pulldown. I do this all the time on my computer monitor and it is absolutely fabulous.

Sorry, this is a long, rambly post. Oh well ...

John and ECB,

Thanks. Just exactly the information I was looking for.

John, your post was just as long and rambly as it needed to be.

Although I do like to accumulate hi tech stuff that I may only occasionally use, this might be a job better sent off to:
http://www.moviestuff.tv/transfers.html

Thanks again, I would not have known what or where without you guys help.

Some time ago I had a customer with two reels of film that had been stored in the attic, They were similar to the crumbling films described above.

I found a service that used a technique where the film would be put in a pressurized container with camphor gas for two months. After the treatment, the film had to be transferred within two hours as it would begin to harden again. The cost was to be $230 for 400 feet of film. My customer decided to forego the transfer, so I don't know if it would have worked. If you are interested, I'll try to find the service again.