New scanner...Filmic

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

https://www.filmictech.com/

Reminds me of a Kinetta. (Which I could find very little about.) Have you heard anything about the Filmic? Looks like it is for pristine film and not the usual stuff I get.

 

<><><><>

 

Selection (Candid) from

De Wallen: Amsterdam's Red Light District artist's book 2014

by

D.D.Teoli Jr.

 

 

Edited March 28 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Robin Phillips]

this is a really cool find, thanks for posting it. hopefully they make a good product and will post some test scans soon

[Perry Paolantonio]

Pretty sure this has been discussed here but it's an odd duck. At least in the iteration I looked at a while back it did pretty low res scans. That may have changed, but there were some odd design decisions. Like its overscan is so bit they're leaving a ton of pixels on the table. I assume they're capturing 2 frames at once, splitting them up and then putting them in sequence (which is fine, but look how much excess nothingness is scanned in the examples they show on their site. I get wanting edge to edge scans, but this goes way beyond that and leaves a lot of wasted pixels behind.

Also, this was designed for archives, to catalog/inspect large collections, not for new film - not sure where you're getting that since the first line of text on their web site references archival collections...

The Kinetta is definitely a nicer machine, more mature, and appears to be much more solidly built than what I saw of the Filmic scanner at NAB last year. 

[Dan Baxter]

They're designed for volume archiving (which they are clear about), not for finishing scans. They don't even have gates.

The Kinetta is also designed for archives but not necessarily volume work.

They are priced around what the Cintel costs I think except they can do up to 48fps (correct me if this is wrong) but Cintel can only do 30. From what I can tell though their goal would be 90fps or as fast as the film can possibly go. I don't know how much research into scanners they did before designing it as going faster and faster on a continuous-motion scanner will just lead to more blur and even where the quality isn't important and it's for cataloguing maybe they want to see more clearly the damage the print has or the dirt particles etc. Also a Cintel doesn't have plastic rollers.

13 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Reminds me of a Kinetta. (Which I could find very little about.) Have you heard anything about the Filmic? Looks like it is for pristine film and not the usual stuff I get.

Yes it's nothing like a Kinetta. It may look similar, but the Filmics are more designed to "see what you have" and then send it out for proper work basically.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/28/2024 at 8:38 PM, Robin Phillips said:

this is a really cool find, thanks for posting it. hopefully they make a good product and will post some test scans soon

 

Robin, you find many things by accident. Google is getting worse all the time with their prejudicial search results. I was was just lucky that day.

Sadly, a lot of the scanners out there don't seem to mesh well with warped and degraded films. Lasergraphics's warped film gate is a jewel to behold. I wish other scanning companies would put some time into warped and shrunken film handling.

 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:35 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:

Pretty sure this has been discussed here but it's an odd duck. At least in the iteration I looked at a while back it did pretty low res scans. That may have changed, but there were some odd design decisions. Like its overscan is so bit they're leaving a ton of pixels on the table. I assume they're capturing 2 frames at once, splitting them up and then putting them in sequence (which is fine, but look how much excess nothingness is scanned in the examples they show on their site. I get wanting edge to edge scans, but this goes way beyond that and leaves a lot of wasted pixels behind.

Also, this was designed for archives, to catalog/inspect large collections, not for new film - not sure where you're getting that since the first line of text on their web site references archival collections...

The Kinetta is definitely a nicer machine, more mature, and appears to be much more solidly built than what I saw of the Filmic scanner at NAB last year. 

They may promote it to archives, but it does not look like it can keep warped film flat. (edit- Dan Baxter answered question.)

Why is the Kinetta so obscure Perry? Did you ever use one?

Edited April 7 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:50 AM, Dan Baxter said:

They're designed for volume archiving (which they are clear about), not for finishing scans. They don't even have gates.

The Kinetta is also designed for archives but not necessarily volume work.

They are priced around what the Cintel costs I think except they can do up to 48fps (correct me if this is wrong) but Cintel can only do 30. From what I can tell though their goal would be 90fps or as fast as the film can possibly go. I don't know how much research into scanners they did before designing it as going faster and faster on a continuous-motion scanner will just lead to more blur and even where the quality isn't important and it's for cataloguing maybe they want to see more clearly the damage the print has or the dirt particles etc. Also a Cintel doesn't have plastic rollers.

Yes it's nothing like a Kinetta. It may look similar, but the Filmics are more designed to "see what you have" and then send it out for proper work basically.

OK, thanks.

I saw some photos of a flat style film viewer. It wasn't a Steenbeck, more compact and did sound. I think it was flat style anyway. It was a long time ago. A stock footage company had it in a video I watched. Yes, it is always fun picking up a mystery reel to see what is on it.