Dan Baxter Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 7:27 AM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: $22K is not reasonable for a small tabletop 8mm scanner. It is very high as far as I'm concerned. No question it is not built well. But no matter high well built, for the limited use it provides, the price is just too much. Well then you design and build a scanner for $10,000. We already saw what happened with Moviestuff who's scanners were nowhere near the same quality. People can correct me if I'm wrong here, but Filmfabriek is hardly a profit-driven company: they've created the best they can for their price-point. The fact that it is small and table-top is an advantage. Most scanners are big and heavy. As Perry has said, the amount of work that goes into the R&D before the product is ready is high. Blackmagic released the Cintel-C Drive scanner in 2020 (the third version of the scanner and first that came with capstans instead of sprocket wheels) and only now in 2024 have they released an 8mm gate for it. To build a commercial scanner you need to create: 1. A transport module with a film gate to get the film flat. 2. An optical module. 3. A light module (backlight). 4. A frame detection system. 5. Capture software to control everything. And at this price it needs to run off an average computer too. 6. Product support for your clients. All of that will take you at least two years of work, unless you at minimum purchase a working film-transport module from someone that you can manufacture yourself or source reliably. And now you're entering an already competitive market too. If you already have a Blackmagic Cintel C-Drive of G3 scanner you can purchase the dual-8mm gate for just $1,265. You can purchase a refurbished TCS TVT-8 or TVT-S8 from Urbanski Film for $3,500. Going for a similar design to the TCS and Elmos, you can purchase Film-Digital Transferkit for €2,098 good to go. Dual-8 Ventura Images scanners are CAD $9,000 (about USD $6,600 samples here and they also sell a 16mm version). For $22,000 for something that will produce professional quality work that's very reasonable. The next cheapest professional quality 8mm scanner is the HDS+ and after that the LaserGraphics Archivist and Baby Kinetta. On 5/29/2024 at 7:50 AM, Samuel Preston said: Perry, I don’t know why you continuously bother to entertain the reoccurring theme of everything being too expensive for Teoli. But props to you. This has been the case for many years, it isn't just Mr Teoli. People have been saying this about almost every commercial scanning machine for years. Once you go above $5,000 hardly anyone can afford a scanner and the market for them drops off, especially individuals. It's a bit surprising that people would say this about the FF Pictor given there are plenty of lower-cost alternatives as outlined above, but ever since the "cheap" scanners hit the market they made the professional scanning equipment look expensive. I actually think it's helpful that Mr Teoli asks these questions etc as it does help to clear up some misconceptions about all this stuff.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 4, 2024 Premium Member Posted June 4, 2024 Camera alone is gonna cost $5k.
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 5, 2024 Site Sponsor Posted June 5, 2024 22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Camera alone is gonna cost $5k. If you don't need speed you can find some used Kodak CCD cameras from Imperx or Vieworks or other Machine Vision camera companies. The Ex-Kodak 5.5micron CCDs in 3.3K 4.8K and 6.6K are available as color or monochrome and make excellent scanner cameras if you can accept scans at between 1fps and 5fps run in single tap mode they are pretty flawless cameras. Figure $450-$1500 for a Gig-E camera. Lamp that can do RGB LED balance and lens and then a transport etc. you could put a basic slow scanner together for around $10K if you write the software to run it.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 5, 2024 Premium Member Posted June 5, 2024 2 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said: If you don't need speed you can find some used Kodak CCD cameras from Imperx or Vieworks or other Machine Vision camera companies. Huh interesting, I never thought about going CCD. So why are they so cheap compared to CMOS? Is it just down to imager size and tech?
Site Sponsor Perry Paolantonio Posted June 5, 2024 Site Sponsor Posted June 5, 2024 8 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said: If you don't need speed you can find some used Kodak CCD cameras from Imperx or Vieworks or other Machine Vision camera companies. I've got a Vieworks VN-16MC I'd be willing to sell - 14.5k with 9x pixelshift, 5k without. monochrome. Cameralink, with capture board and cabling. 6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: So why are they so cheap compared to CMOS? Is it just down to imager size and tech? It has nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS. They're "cheap" because they're 10+ years old. But they are great cameras.
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 6, 2024 Site Sponsor Posted June 6, 2024 (edited) 21 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Huh interesting, I never thought about going CCD. So why are they so cheap compared to CMOS? Is it just down to imager size and tech? As Perry said these are (relatively) older sensors and the speed is slow, the 6.6K OnSemi (Ex Kodak) 5.5micron CCD was made through 2019 or 2020 and especially in single tap (1-2fps) is virtually noiseles and without any tap balance or cmos tap grid artifacts issues. They also made a 5K (4.8K) 7,4 micron CCD that is 14 bit which yeilds true 16 bit in 2-flash HDR mode and in single tap that is 2fps which in True RGB and HDR is about 0.33FPS Edited June 6, 2024 by Robert Houllahan
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 6, 2024 Premium Member Posted June 6, 2024 18 minutes ago, Robert Houllahan said: As Perry said these are (relatively) older sensors and the speed is slow, the 6.6K OnSemi (Ex Kodak) 5.5micron CCD was made through 2019 or 2020 and especially in single tap (1-2fps) is virtually noiseles and without any tap balance or cmos tap grid artifacts issues. So really it's just down to a bandwidth issue in terms of speed. Did anyone make something faster or was it just lower res?
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 6, 2024 Site Sponsor Posted June 6, 2024 (edited) 14 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: So really it's just down to a bandwidth issue in terms of speed. Did anyone make something faster or was it just lower res? The speed is limited by the CCD sensor itself. New CMOS Sensors have many more taps and they are balanced (pretty much) so they can move more sensor data off the sensor into the bus compared to a CCD. These CCD sensors can be run faster in 2-tap or 4-tap mode but then you get tap balance issues and in film scanning you will see quadrants in the scan unless a ton of work is done to balance the sensor taps. Edited June 6, 2024 by Robert Houllahan
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 7, 2024 Premium Member Posted June 7, 2024 6 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said: The speed is limited by the CCD sensor itself. New CMOS Sensors have many more taps and they are balanced (pretty much) so they can move more sensor data off the sensor into the bus compared to a CCD. These CCD sensors can be run faster in 2-tap or 4-tap mode but then you get tap balance issues and in film scanning you will see quadrants in the scan unless a ton of work is done to balance the sensor taps. Oh interesting, I've seen this phenomena before. So they don't work like standard camera imagers then with a final combined output?
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 8, 2024 Site Sponsor Posted June 8, 2024 On 6/6/2024 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Purcell said: Oh interesting, I've seen this phenomena before. So they don't work like standard camera imagers then with a final combined output? They work like any imager the data stream is the whole sensor or the ROI you select, the CCDs just have fewer taps than the CMOS cameras and the way CCDs work makes it harder to have all the taps perfectly balanced. Since I have been building scanners in 2010 I ahve always run these and other CCD sensors in single tap mode as that is perfect and the scans come out flawless, just slowly. 1
Dan Baxter Posted June 10, 2024 Posted June 10, 2024 On 6/4/2024 at 3:28 PM, Tyler Purcell said: Camera alone is gonna cost $5k. The scanner manufacturers buy them wholesale not retail. 😛 But if you're building your own scanner from scratch, here 'ya go: 4K and same brand that LG uses. Or, Teledyne Flir $1,800 brand new retail price. As I mentioned to Mr Teoli we all know what components go into a modern digital movie film scanner, it's hardly a secret and the designs are relatively simple requiring less in the way of complex engineering. The being said, they require engineering - they require maintenance, they require software development, they require technical support for the users. People don't seem to appreciate the amount of R&D that goes into these devices. It took Blackmagic about 4 years to bring their Cintel scanner to market, and ever since then the pace of development has been glacial. They bought-out Rank Cintel so they started with industry knowledge and existing IP. Obviously they haven't just gone and used a Rank Cintel telecine transport module - but every part of it became Blackmagic's knowledge: film tensioning, roller/sproket designs, gate designs, etc. 2024, that's 8 years, is when they released a dual 8mm gate for them - and of course it will only work on the capstan model Cintels not the older pre-pandemic models that are sproket-driven. What surprises me is that people are saying the Filmfabriek Pictor is too expensive. If that's the case what's stopping someone from buying something cheaper? Here's a Super-8 sound "transferkit" used by a Spanish university: They only cost €2,000-€3,000 each and the kinds of users that would buy them are most likely replacing older projector-based 8mm/16mm transfer systems including filming the projection off a wall, Tobins, or Moviestuff equipment or even DIY equipment. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it as good as a Pictor? No. To make them at that price compromises are made, and similarly compromises are made for usability. On 6/6/2024 at 2:10 PM, Tyler Purcell said: So really it's just down to a bandwidth issue in terms of speed. Did anyone make something faster or was it just lower res? Yes they did, the line-sensor CCDs are single-tap and speedy. Given the engineering costs involved in making line-sensor scanners as well as the other downsides, I don't see the point now.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 10, 2024 Premium Member Posted June 10, 2024 11 hours ago, Dan Baxter said: The scanner manufacturers buy them wholesale not retail. 😛 But if you're building your own scanner from scratch, here 'ya go: Interesting, yea I mean the camera we've been wanting to upgrade our scanner is $3500 USD. I think it's because the imager is physically larger than the cheaper cameras and for a reason; better dynamic range with larger pixels. I guess if the quality doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 14 Posted February 14 On 6/4/2024 at 12:48 AM, Dan Baxter said: Well then you design and build a scanner for $10,000. We already saw what happened with Moviestuff who's scanners were nowhere near the same quality. People can correct me if I'm wrong here, but Filmfabriek is hardly a profit-driven company: they've created the best they can for their price-point. The fact that it is small and table-top is an advantage. Most scanners are big and heavy. As Perry has said, the amount of work that goes into the R&D before the product is ready is high. Blackmagic released the Cintel-C Drive scanner in 2020 (the third version of the scanner and first that came with capstans instead of sprocket wheels) and only now in 2024 have they released an 8mm gate for it. To build a commercial scanner you need to create: 1. A transport module with a film gate to get the film flat. 2. An optical module. 3. A light module (backlight). 4. A frame detection system. 5. Capture software to control everything. And at this price it needs to run off an average computer too. 6. Product support for your clients. All of that will take you at least two years of work, unless you at minimum purchase a working film-transport module from someone that you can manufacture yourself or source reliably. And now you're entering an already competitive market too. If you already have a Blackmagic Cintel C-Drive of G3 scanner you can purchase the dual-8mm gate for just $1,265. You can purchase a refurbished TCS TVT-8 or TVT-S8 from Urbanski Film for $3,500. Going for a similar design to the TCS and Elmos, you can purchase Film-Digital Transferkit for €2,098 good to go. Dual-8 Ventura Images scanners are CAD $9,000 (about USD $6,600 samples here and they also sell a 16mm version). For $22,000 for something that will produce professional quality work that's very reasonable. The next cheapest professional quality 8mm scanner is the HDS+ and after that the LaserGraphics Archivist and Baby Kinetta. This has been the case for many years, it isn't just Mr Teoli. People have been saying this about almost every commercial scanning machine for years. Once you go above $5,000 hardly anyone can afford a scanner and the market for them drops off, especially individuals. It's a bit surprising that people would say this about the FF Pictor given there are plenty of lower-cost alternatives as outlined above, but ever since the "cheap" scanners hit the market they made the professional scanning equipment look expensive. I actually think it's helpful that Mr Teoli asks these questions etc as it does help to clear up some misconceptions about all this stuff. None of that matters. Either something is feasible for a sale price or not Dan. $22K for a tabletop 8mm scanner is too high, Dan. If they would lower the price they would sell more and make it up in higher sales volume.
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 14 Posted February 14 On 6/10/2024 at 3:59 PM, Tyler Purcell said: Interesting, yea I mean the camera we've been wanting to upgrade our scanner is $3500 USD. I think it's because the imager is physically larger than the cheaper cameras and for a reason; better dynamic range with larger pixels. I guess if the quality doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. Again, it is overpriced. For $3.5k you can buy a nice 'real' camera and not just a small box scanner camera.
Site Sponsor Perry Paolantonio Posted February 14 Site Sponsor Posted February 14 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: If they would lower the price they would sell more and make it up in higher sales volume. And they would promptly go out of business. What part of this are you not getting? Quote Again, it is overpriced. For $3.5k you can buy a nice 'real' camera and not just a small box scanner camera. An SLR and a machine vision camera aren't the same thing. You can't compare them. Edited February 14 by Perry Paolantonio 1
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Perry, you've swallowed the bait. All you do is make excuses. It is a common business practice to spread out R&D over the sales volume. You don't try to recover it in small volume and make the product unreasonably priced. Lower the price and sell more product.
Site Sponsor Perry Paolantonio Posted February 14 Site Sponsor Posted February 14 (edited) I've been in business for 25 years. "make it up in volume" is an illusion. More so when you're only selling a few hundred or maybe a few thousand of something at most, over many years. Quote Lower the price and sell more product. Lower the price and go out of business. You can't make money if you're selling for less than it costs to make. And "cost to make" includes R&D, inventory, manufacturing, tooling, salaries, shipping, marketing, office space, lawyers, accountants. You don't "spread that out over years" if you're a small company. You borrow money you have to repay, whether from investors, banks, or your own savings. Honestly, I don't know why I bother engaging with you. It's like talking to a 12 year old. Edited February 14 by Perry Paolantonio
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Perry, no one is saying you have to sell it for less than it cost to make it. So, you make it in China or Taiwan after it is designed in Germany. You figure out how to do it instead of making excuses.
Site Sponsor Perry Paolantonio Posted February 14 Site Sponsor Posted February 14 9 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: You figure out how to do it instead of making excuses. Then instead of coming here (quite literally for years) to complain about the price of scanners, why don't you build one and find out how easy it is? 3
Premium Member Jeff Bernstein Posted February 14 Premium Member Posted February 14 (edited) Comic Relief : the World is Watching the World Watching the World On 5/28/2024 at 10:27 PM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: This amusing advertisement of yesteryear (c1949) recalls a significant and significantly funny advertisement mentioned in Nabokov, Lolita, 1.16. Thank you, Mr Teoli! I came out of my daze and found myself still in Lo’s room. A full-page ad ripped out of a slick magazine was affixed to the wall above the bed, between a crooner’s mug and the lashes of a movie actress. It represented a dark-haired young husband with a kind of drained look in his Irish eyes. He was modelling a robe by So-and-So and holding a bridge-like tray by So-and-So, with breakfast for two. The legend, by the Rev. Thomas Morell, called him a ‘conquering hero’. The thoroughly conquered lady (not shown) was presumably propping herself up to receive her half of the tray. How her bedfellow was to get under the bridge without some messy mishap was not clear. Lo had drawn a jocose arrow to the haggard lover’s face and had put, in block letters: H.H. And indeed, despite a difference of a few years, the resemblance was striking. Edited February 14 by Jeff Bernstein
Dan Baxter Posted February 16 Posted February 16 On 2/15/2025 at 12:21 AM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said: None of that matters. Either something is feasible for a sale price or not Dan. $22K for a tabletop 8mm scanner is too high, Dan. If they would lower the price they would sell more and make it up in higher sales volume. Again, if you think that's too high then you should engineer and build one yourself instead of publicly slagging off the manufacturers that so far as I can see are doing their level best at their price-points. You clearly do not understand how a film scanner works. You seem to think it's just a camera pointed at the film. 1. how do you move the film past the camera? 2. how do you trigger the camera? 3. how does your illumination work? 4. how do you get the film flat for capture? 5. how do you get a stable scan? 6. how do you focus the camera and get perfect focus? 7. how much workload is the host computer capable of? 8. what about audio? 9. anything you design now needs to be archival, you cannot build something rough on film like your Moviestuff Retroscan. There are existing "scanners" at the sub-$5K price point anyway. Here you are: https://en.film-digital.com/sets and you can even hook up a cheap iPhone or DSLR to them. I won't bother explaining the drawbacks - but what they're doing is using an existing mechanical solution to solve some of the design issues I talked about above. Blackmagic still works on a similar principle with their Cintels too - hence why you see a glacial pace of development. Do you understand the distinction? To make the changes to a Cintel that people expect (eg replace the camera) Blackmagic would need to replace the logic board that handles the raw camera data inside the machine itself - not just update the capture software. That's how most of the old machines work, and not just scanners of course but also the film cleaners, processors, printers, projectors etc. Filmfabriek, Arri, LaserGraphics, DCS, etc. design their machines to be upgradable, aka "modular". Most of the companies that built the power-hungry machines have left the business because it's not cost effective to run a machine with heaps of logic boards in it compared to the more simple ones hooked up to powerful host computers. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now