Jump to content

Archival scanning biz...going up, down or steady? (...and film production as well?)


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Recommended Posts

Seems to be more and more people going into scanning. Is the archival scanning biz...going up, down or steady?

And what about big and indie budget movie film scanning. What are the trends for it?

 

Kodak%20Movie%20News%20Fall%201963%20D.D

'Deakins as a teenager'

DDTJRAC

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There sadly isn't one point of data for this. 

Scanners are cheaper today than they have been in the past, but remember many labs closed during the end of film. So do we have more machines today or less? I'd say we probably have an equal amount, it's just that machines are in the hands of consumers, which wasn't the case in the past. One guy with a scanner can really get the price down low, where the bigger vendors can't afford to compete. 

Archival work is still generally done with bigger vendors, there are only a few that actually do this work. Mainly because they have special techniques to deal with damaged film. Where it's true, machines like the scan station can do really good cleanup, very few scan stations are in the hands of consumers. The bulk of them are in professional labs that have not only the talent to do restoration, but also the clean rooms which are required as film will be sitting on a bench unwound for a long time as you clean frame by frame. I personally have done this work and it's tedious, but for real archival work, you need to do that. We have a wet gate on our scanner that can help with scratches, but deep dirt needs to be cleaned by hand, frame by frame. So to really do archival work, you need more of a clean room that's vented to deal with the chemicals you need. 

I can tell you the labs are't horribly busy right now. Even at Fotokem, if I were to drop a 400ft roll of film off monday before midnight, they'd have it processed and scanned by 3pm. I got a quote for a 20,000ft show that we wanted to do a graded telecine pass on and they said it could all be done in 2 days. That's the top lab in the entire nation. Every lab has it's level of business, but this year has been pretty normal, not crazy and not dead. 

We've done 2 features this year so far, but we've been not horribly busy, mostly due to lack of advertising. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Where it's true, machines like the scan station can do really good cleanup, very few scan stations are in the hands of consumers. The bulk of them are in professional labs that have not only the talent to do restoration, but also the clean rooms which are required as film will be sitting on a bench unwound for a long time as you clean frame by frame.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Tyler. I'm aware of several ScanStations that are owned by small companies or operators that do their own thing and do not advertise that they even have them. Some of them are used by companies that do low-cost home movie transfers. But don't be fooled, the quality varies on those machines a lot depending on which model it is, what options it has, and how it's operated.

As far as Archival scanning goes, I'd agree with you that many of the larger vendors do that work - however it's important to point out they have this much more available to them now, whereas they didn't have it available a decade ago due to the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 minutes ago, Dan Baxter said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Tyler. I'm aware of several ScanStations that are owned by small companies or operators that do their own thing and do not advertise that they even have them. Some of them are used by companies that do low-cost home movie transfers. But don't be fooled, the quality varies on those machines a lot depending on which model it is, what options it has, and how it's operated.

You're right, I should have been more specific about what model I was referring to. I'm not talking about the archivist. I'm referring to the 6.5k imager "scan station" which is their middle model in the line. 

I know one person in the US who has one and works out of their house. I'd love to find more people honestly. 

Nearly every post house that works with film seems to have one, it's as common as a coffee maker at those places. Doesn't mean they use them... many just sit idle because they have newer/better solutions, but they still have them hanging around. 

I really like them tho, I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could afford a $5k a month lease. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You're right, I should have been more specific about what model I was referring to. I'm not talking about the archivist.

What I mean is that there are older models (it's a scanner launched in 2013) many small companies bought them when they were cheaper, and some upgraded them to 6.5K later on.

8 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I know one person in the US who has one and works out of their house. I'd love to find more people honestly.

I know two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Dan Baxter said:

What I mean is that there are older models (it's a scanner launched in 2013) many small companies bought them when they were cheaper, and some upgraded them to 6.5K later on.

Ah yes, probably many of those are in real labs these days. 

I was mostly referring to people working from their homes. I know 5 people with Cintel II's in Los Angeles alone, who scan from their homes. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I really like them tho, I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could afford a $5k a month lease. 

To be honest with you, I think they are well overpriced as it is and Lasergraphics is putting the price UP next year as well. The only reasonable way for a small company (or an individual) to get one in 2022 is with a clear business plan which you would probably want to prove to yourself first with a cheaper scanning machine. As for the cost of them, you really need to select only the options you absolutely need and get what you don't later on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 minutes ago, Dan Baxter said:

To be honest with you, I think they are well overpriced as it is and Lasergraphics is putting the price UP next year as well. The only reasonable way for a small company (or an individual) to get one in 2022 is with a clear business plan which you would probably want to prove to yourself first with a cheaper scanning machine. As for the cost of them, you really need to select only the options you absolutely need and get what you don't later on.

Oh wholeheartedly agree, they are absolutely over priced for what they are. 

Kinetta kinda proved that by making a machine with the same quality, but for $60k. 

At my home we bought a Film Fabriek HDS+ because we only do narrow gauge's. We have two 4k Imagica line scanners at the office along with an Arri Scan XT and Spirit 4k. But I mostly use the FF because it's a few feet from my bedroom door. Much easier than driving to the office. It's a toy for sure, but it gets the job done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 12/18/2021 at 2:28 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

At my home we bought a Film Fabriek HDS+ because we only do narrow gauge's. We have two 4k Imagica line scanners at the office along with an Arri Scan XT and Spirit 4k. But I mostly use the FF because it's a few feet from my bedroom door. Much easier than driving to the office. It's a toy for sure, but it gets the job done.

I have an HDS+, too, and it's a very capable toy.  Built like a tank.  Quite like a really useful machine.

My case use is slightly different from others.  I buy public domain car films (automotive industrials, commercials, etc.) off of eBay, scan them with the HDS+, do color correction with Resolve, restoration with Diamant, and upload clips from those films to Getty Images.  I make decent monthly passive income that is slowly increasing as I add more clips over time.

I'm doing archival work but for a commercial purpose (financial self interest).  Kinda like an automotive-based Rick Prelinger, who has a huge number of clips for sale on Getty.

My point is:  there are several different uses for these steadily cheaper/decent quality scanners.  I'm not shooting features.  I'm not a film studio leveraging its archive.  I'm a guy who sees a financial opportunity in monetizing material in the public domain.

To me, it's fascinating to read about other case uses for these scanners as they become more affordable.

(PS:  Dan Baxter, thanks for your link to the Kelmar equipment.  I'm not experienced enough yet to be aware of it.  If I call them, are they more accessible and forthcoming about their prices?)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

Cinelab was very busy in 2021 and the last quarter of the year was kind of bonkers between Tri-X for schools and a bunch of high profile work for NFL HBO Nike etc.

I have five scanners and I am building another Xena probably with the 12K or 14K Sony sensor.

I know that film in NYC is way up and probably more than LA I would guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

There sadly isn't one point of data for this. 

Scanners are cheaper today than they have been in the past, but remember many labs closed during the end of film. So do we have more machines today or less? I'd say we probably have an equal amount, it's just that machines are in the hands of consumers, which wasn't the case in the past. One guy with a scanner can really get the price down low, where the bigger vendors can't afford to compete. 

Archival work is still generally done with bigger vendors, there are only a few that actually do this work. Mainly because they have special techniques to deal with damaged film. Where it's true, machines like the scan station can do really good cleanup, very few scan stations are in the hands of consumers. The bulk of them are in professional labs that have not only the talent to do restoration, but also the clean rooms which are required as film will be sitting on a bench unwound for a long time as you clean frame by frame. I personally have done this work and it's tedious, but for real archival work, you need to do that. We have a wet gate on our scanner that can help with scratches, but deep dirt needs to be cleaned by hand, frame by frame. So to really do archival work, you need more of a clean room that's vented to deal with the chemicals you need. 

I can tell you the labs are't horribly busy right now. Even at Fotokem, if I were to drop a 400ft roll of film off monday before midnight, they'd have it processed and scanned by 3pm. I got a quote for a 20,000ft show that we wanted to do a graded telecine pass on and they said it could all be done in 2 days. That's the top lab in the entire nation. Every lab has it's level of business, but this year has been pretty normal, not crazy and not dead. 

We've done 2 features this year so far, but we've been not horribly busy, mostly due to lack of advertising. 

 

Thanks for the rundown Tyler. I'm hoping to get back to some of these scanner threads I started so I can digest what has unfolded. Just no time.  I've got about 18 PDF's to download, so am trying to read and answer a few posts today as I download the PDF's. That is how I gotta work, sad, but that is it.

Never thought about a clean room. But makes sense. Exactly what do you do to clean each frame? What sort of wipes and cleaner?

Yes, it sounds terrible if you have to clean each frame. I can hardly stand to clean the roll...as fast as I can run it through the rewinds. I hate it. All I want is the scan, not the rest of the hassle. Slow, methodical cleaning is not good if you got ADD. The ADD'er does not like repetitive, slow work.

Now, I don't mind scanning that much, it is kinda fascinating, especially if you have not previewed the film in the editor. You see it all unfold, which can be very fascinating if you got a 'pig in a poke' film and have no idea what you got. I always run the film through the rewinds to see the condition of the film before scanning. But I don't run through the editor much anymore. Again...time problems. I may loupe the film here or there, but content is 98% blind many times. 

It is mainly the cleaning I don't like, as slow drying cleaner takes many passes to dry up. If I don't have the time, I can wipe it pretty clean and let it sit not perfectly dry for a few hours to evaporate before scanning. But I prefer to dry it properly. I wish I had one of the hypersonic film cleaners.  Slow drying cleaner does a better job that fast-drying cleaner (Edwal) at getting the dirt off, but slow drying cleaner is a pain to actually get dry in a hurry.

This thread was started Tyler, to get a better idea of where the scanning biz is headed for those that may want to buy a new or used scanner in the future.

It is an inquiry into the questions of...

Will the use of film keep dwindling and as well as the demand for archival scans?

Are major companies going to stop making scanners / go out of biz?

Will they make cheaper scanners to broaden their market of ever decreasing or stagnant customers?

Are the people that thought they can charge $300 to scan a small roll of film going to be short on biz and start selling their scanners? Things like that. 

 

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 1:16 AM, Dan Baxter said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Tyler. I'm aware of several ScanStations that are owned by small companies or operators that do their own thing and do not advertise that they even have them. Some of them are used by companies that do low-cost home movie transfers. But don't be fooled, the quality varies on those machines a lot depending on which model it is, what options it has, and how it's operated.

As far as Archival scanning goes, I'd agree with you that many of the larger vendors do that work - however it's important to point out they have this much more available to them now, whereas they didn't have it available a decade ago due to the costs.

 

Sure, operation is a big deal. Can't say about ScanStations though, no experience there. But when I tried auto exposure vs. manual exposure, it made a world of difference which setting I was using. Had to stop the auto and go with manual exposure for scans. Even then, manual / best light won't cut it all the time. Many of the films have to be timed for the exposure on each section. So, lots to learn about film scanning.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 1:25 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

You're right, I should have been more specific about what model I was referring to. I'm not talking about the archivist. I'm referring to the 6.5k imager "scan station" which is their middle model in the line. 

I know one person in the US who has one and works out of their house. I'd love to find more people honestly. 

Nearly every post house that works with film seems to have one, it's as common as a coffee maker at those places. Doesn't mean they use them... many just sit idle because they have newer/better solutions, but they still have them hanging around. 

I really like them tho, I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could afford a $5k a month lease. 

 

If they don't use them, tell them to loan me one for 2 years and I'll add their name to all my productions. May not do them any good, but I get millions of eyeballs over the year viewing with my stuff. If it is just sitting, might as well put it to use. 

As I've said many a time. The film acquisition (archival) is not the issue. It can be acquired very cheap, somewhat cheap or not too expensive most of the time. The scanning $$ is the issue, not the film acquisition.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 1:41 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Ah yes, probably many of those are in real labs these days. 

I was mostly referring to people working from their homes. I know 5 people with Cintel II's in Los Angeles alone, who scan from their homes. 

What are they scanning? You had said Cintel is no good for archival 16mm. Are they doing indie dailies or their own stuff?

If Cintel made a 16mm unit with a good 4K sensor and a warped film gate that read optical sound for $20K...then they would have something. 

But, you know the deal with 'if'...if grandma had balls, she would be grandpa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 2:13 AM, Dan Baxter said:

To be honest with you, I think they are well overpriced as it is and Lasergraphics is putting the price UP next year as well. The only reasonable way for a small company (or an individual) to get one in 2022 is with a clear business plan which you would probably want to prove to yourself first with a cheaper scanning machine. As for the cost of them, you really need to select only the options you absolutely need and get what you don't later on.

That is not true. As an open content Archive, I have no business plan other than I buy lotto tickets all the time. 

But since Lasergraphics plans to raise the prices, I will have to double my lotto ticket purchases!  I write Lasergraphics all the time for sponsorship for my film Archive...never got one reply. They must love money over the love of film. OK, they are a biz and need profit, but still if you love something it overrides profit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 2:28 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh wholeheartedly agree, they are absolutely over priced for what they are. 

Kinetta kinda proved that by making a machine with the same quality, but for $60k. 

At my home we bought a Film Fabriek HDS+ because we only do narrow gauge's. We have two 4k Imagica line scanners at the office along with an Arri Scan XT and Spirit 4k. But I mostly use the FF because it's a few feet from my bedroom door. Much easier than driving to the office. It's a toy for sure, but it gets the job done. 

 

Kinetta never got anywhere, did they? Aren't they defunct? And $60k is way too high for that machine me thinks. 

http://www.kinetta.com/images/clipboard.jpg?crc=3888319758

Perry said the Retroscan is a toy. That Kinetta looks like a kid's toy. It may scan great, but it still looks like a toy. 

"But I mostly use the FF because it's a few feet from my bedroom door...'

Jeeesus, that is what I need. A cine' scanner in my bedroom! You live in cine' scanning paradise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 9:23 PM, Todd Ruel said:

I have an HDS+, too, and it's a very capable toy.  Built like a tank.  Quite like a really useful machine.

My case use is slightly different from others.  I buy public domain car films (automotive industrials, commercials, etc.) off of eBay, scan them with the HDS+, do color correction with Resolve, restoration with Diamant, and upload clips from those films to Getty Images.  I make decent monthly passive income that is slowly increasing as I add more clips over time.

I'm doing archival work but for a commercial purpose (financial self interest).  Kinda like an automotive-based Rick Prelinger, who has a huge number of clips for sale on Getty.

My point is:  there are several different uses for these steadily cheaper/decent quality scanners.  I'm not shooting features.  I'm not a film studio leveraging its archive.  I'm a guy who sees a financial opportunity in monetizing material in the public domain.

To me, it's fascinating to read about other case uses for these scanners as they become more affordable.

(PS:  Dan Baxter, thanks for your link to the Kelmar equipment.  I'm not experienced enough yet to be aware of it.  If I call them, are they more accessible and forthcoming about their prices?)

 

That is interesting. I think Tyler said his FF didn't work out of the box and he had trouble with it. How was yours getting it to operate? Did you get any help from the instructions?

I do the same thing as you, except it is all open content. No $$ for me. And Getty won't have anything to do with me and the I.A. can hardly stand me! 

If all a person seeks is $$, they will pass up on things that do not produce $$. Or they will not do things if it affects their $$. I have no such issues. BUT...it takes money to deal with the money sucking cine' film! My VHS Archive is much more affordable. But I prefer cine' film.

Yes, Prelinger is the King! He got started early and had a good bankroll. Lobster in France is another fantastic Archive. 

Here is Prelinger's wife...

Interview of archivist Megan Prelinger RWM : D.D. Teoli Jr. as archivist : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 1:24 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

Cinelab was very busy in 2021 and the last quarter of the year was kind of bonkers between Tri-X for schools and a bunch of high profile work for NFL HBO Nike etc.

I have five scanners and I am building another Xena probably with the 12K or 14K Sony sensor.

I know that film in NYC is way up and probably more than LA I would guess.

That is good! Glad things are booming for you. You got a beautiful operation and I know it take a lot of $$ for overhead to run it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 9:23 PM, Todd Ruel said:

I have an HDS+, too, and it's a very capable toy.  Built like a tank.  Quite like a really useful machine.

My case use is slightly different from others.  I buy public domain car films (automotive industrials, commercials, etc.) off of eBay, scan them with the HDS+, do color correction with Resolve, restoration with Diamant, and upload clips from those films to Getty Images.  I make decent monthly passive income that is slowly increasing as I add more clips over time.

I'm doing archival work but for a commercial purpose (financial self interest).  Kinda like an automotive-based Rick Prelinger, who has a huge number of clips for sale on Getty.

My point is:  there are several different uses for these steadily cheaper/decent quality scanners.  I'm not shooting features.  I'm not a film studio leveraging its archive.  I'm a guy who sees a financial opportunity in monetizing material in the public domain.

To me, it's fascinating to read about other case uses for these scanners as they become more affordable.

(PS:  Dan Baxter, thanks for your link to the Kelmar equipment.  I'm not experienced enough yet to be aware of it.  If I call them, are they more accessible and forthcoming about their prices?)

You can put up the whole film and put a split second counter on it. That is what Periscope Films does. Then people buy the film 'by the second' that they want. He puts films all over the place. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 1:24 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

Cinelab was very busy in 2021 and the last quarter of the year was kind of bonkers between Tri-X for schools and a bunch of high profile work for NFL HBO Nike etc.

I have five scanners and I am building another Xena probably with the 12K or 14K Sony sensor.

I know that film in NYC is way up and probably more than LA I would guess.

I was going to start a thread asking just that...are film schools still shooting film?

I wonder why the film school does not offer scanning experience as well. Just as they used to and maybe still do, teach the wet darkroom with photography. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 9:23 PM, Todd Ruel said:

I have an HDS+, too, and it's a very capable toy.  Built like a tank.  Quite like a really useful machine.

My case use is slightly different from others.  I buy public domain car films (automotive industrials, commercials, etc.) off of eBay, scan them with the HDS+, do color correction with Resolve, restoration with Diamant, and upload clips from those films to Getty Images.  I make decent monthly passive income that is slowly increasing as I add more clips over time.

I'm doing archival work but for a commercial purpose (financial self interest).  Kinda like an automotive-based Rick Prelinger, who has a huge number of clips for sale on Getty.

My point is:  there are several different uses for these steadily cheaper/decent quality scanners.  I'm not shooting features.  I'm not a film studio leveraging its archive.  I'm a guy who sees a financial opportunity in monetizing material in the public domain.

To me, it's fascinating to read about other case uses for these scanners as they become more affordable.

(PS:  Dan Baxter, thanks for your link to the Kelmar equipment.  I'm not experienced enough yet to be aware of it.  If I call them, are they more accessible and forthcoming about their prices?)

Is there anything you don't like about your scanner. Have any issues with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Is there anything you don't like about your scanner. Have any issues with it?

I love it.  Our Film Fabriek HDS+ works as advertised.  It's built like some piece of over engineered American industrial equipment from the 1950s.  Sturdy and dependable.

The wet gate feature is nice, but it's not a magic bullet.  It can decrease the effect of vertical lines, but it often does not eliminate them.  (Yes, I know it's not a submersion bath filled with perc and yada yada, but there's a real world trade off between practicality and affordability.)

It transfers 16mm and everything smaller, and it does it to 4K.  The software works well, and tech support from Filmfabriek comes within 24 hours if not sooner.  Honestly, I don't need spare parts, because the thing is so well built and engineered.

My only regret is buying the 16mm optical soundtrack reader.  When we used it (once!), our transfer had a lot of wow and flutter.  We gave up on it immediately and went back to AEO Light, which produces superior results to any hardware I've used.  (Note:  you really have to know and understand AEO Light to get the best results from it, but it's free, and it's outstanding software.)

Having said that, I would consider buying the 16mm mag stripe reader, because there's no software I can use to capture a magnetically recorded soundtrack.

And my partner and I are those people who have a film scanner set up in their spare room.  My partner has it, and he simply walks from his bedroom to the spare room to do transfers and restoration via Diamant on a PC workstation.

But this stuff isn't cheap.  The HDS+ cost me $40K in total and the Diamant license was $10K + a $10K PC workstation to handle it. I work at an Apple Store in Dayton, Ohio.  I saved up for a long time to make the purchase, and I did it by selling my Apple stock.

So while this film scanning equipment is now much cheaper, I would hardly call it "easily achievable," especially if you don't want to take out a loan to buy it all.

Nevertheless, I'm happy with the purchase, and I would do it again.

Edited by Todd Ruel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
3 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

I was going to start a thread asking just that...are film schools still shooting film?

Yes allot and probably more so than in a while, film is a current and future medium and available choice and some of the best current shows are made on film. Any school that teaches film and doesn't offer shooting on film is a doing their students a disservice at best.

Fine arts schools didn't stop offering oil paints when acrylics were invented, same deal.

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

I wonder why the film school does not offer scanning experience as well. Just as they used to and maybe still do, teach the wet darkroom with photography. 

Some of them do! Motion picture scanning is largely becoming a commodity and any fool can buy a scanner and do ? actually operating and pushing film through a scanner on a daily basis is a actual job not everyone really wants.

Wet lab stuff is for the brave of heart who like heavy machinery and running thousands of rolls of Tri-X takes a kind of mad hatter to do, many schools teach how to develop film in a Lomo tank with all kinds of chemistry including beer and coffee.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got my film Archive stored all over. Rents keep going up like hell and I got rid of all my storage lockers I rented due to costs. I don't have a space big enough to store the film all in one place, so I break it up wherever I can find space.

I'm just starting to alphabetize the film Archive into A,B,C, order. This section in the photo will hopefully be for films 'M through T.' If I was a good anal person, I would have them all bar coded, scanned and computerized. But not being a good anal person, I'd be thrilled with just having it in A,B,C, order and hand-written in a logbook.

(I removed some items from the photo for privacy reasons.)

 DSC09271.jpg

 

Lately I've scaled back some with the film acquisitions. After nearly a decade of film acquisition only a negligible portion of the films have been scanned due to cost. As I've said before, if you are broke, scanning is the shitty part of cine' film work. The acquiring film can be done on a tight budget. Sometimes you can get films for a buck or two a reel. In fact, the vented plastic archival cans cost more than some reels! Other times it may be $35 a reel. But, whether it is $1 or $100 a reel, it is all miniscule peanuts compared to the cost of a scanner or paying companies to get scans.

I got over a thousand reels, which is roughly a million feet of film. To get all that film scanned it is $300,000 to $500,000. Just depends on what kind of scans you want...cheap or good scans. So, I figured, no use adding more fuel to the fire with acquiring another million feet of film that will never get scanned.

I've written to many philanthropists that work in all areas of interest from art to film to see if they would help with acquiring a cheap sound scanner and have never received a reply from any of them. Kickstarter said NO to me running a crowd funded 16mm scanner request. I asked the I.A. if they would help or at least loan me a 16mm sound scanner for a couple years. Nothing. In fact, they banned me for a time.

I find it amusing how film production companies write me for use of my films for commercial projects and offer me $1 or £1 to sign a commercial use release. Why? Why would I stick my neck out for nothing? What is in it for me? I make nothing with open content work. Plus no one ever wants to help with scanning costs. I don't mind giving things away for free for educational and historical use, even if they won't help...but that is it. I tell them all the same thing...go to a stock footage company and PAY! Or go buy the film and you be responsible for using it commercially.

There is no other area of my archival work that is as troublesome as cine' film. 

 

Aunt%20Jemima%20Ad%201910%20D.D.Teoli%20

 

Take this 1910 ad of Aunt Jemima. I probably have the largest online, open content, highest quality (res) Aunt Jemima Archive in the world. This ad, which is part of my 1/4 million ad Advertising Archive, is my most expensive ad. I paid about $28 for it. But, it came in a 1910 magazine that had another 100+ ads in it. So, if you prorate the cost per ad to the Advertising Archive, the cost is negligible. And sometimes I can buy vintage mags at a swap meet or yard sale for .25 or .50 cents and get the same 100+ ads in them.

And it is the same with most of the other areas of collection. They are not that $$ to deal with. And even if certain items are somewhat higher to acquire; once you acquire the material you are pretty much done with costs. The material can easily be scanned or photographed or in the case of audio and VHS, digitized at home for next to no cost. But, not so with film. 

Even the video hosting sites have gone downhill over the years. I hadn't put up anything in years at Vimeo due to censorship, but tried one upload this Xmas. I got lots of followers at Vimeo and feel bad I never give them anything, but it is not that I don't want to, it is censorship that is the issue.

Boom...an hour after I uploaded the film, Vimeo shut it down and sent me this notice. 

 

Vimeo%20censorship%20video%20removal%20n

 

I'm surprised they leave up the old films I uploaded...  

NSFW

1928 Cine Art short

Hollywood Sand Witches scanned with the $6,000 Retroscan.

Well, that is the state of affairs for the Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive on February 16, 2022. Life can change on a dime...for better or worse. Hopefully things get better for the Film Archive. I have many fantastic films in the Archive, but they do no good unless they get digitized.

 

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

Yes allot and probably more so than in a while, film is a current and future medium and available choice and some of the best current shows are made on film. Any school that teaches film and doesn't offer shooting on film is a doing their students a disservice at best.

Fine arts schools didn't stop offering oil paints when acrylics were invented, same deal.

Some of them do! Motion picture scanning is largely becoming a commodity and any fool can buy a scanner and do ? actually operating and pushing film through a scanner on a daily basis is a actual job not everyone really wants.

Wet lab stuff is for the brave of heart who like heavy machinery and running thousands of rolls of Tri-X takes a kind of mad hatter to do, many schools teach how to develop film in a Lomo tank with all kinds of chemistry including beer and coffee.

 

 

I wasn't thinking scanning as a job to teach. I was thinking just for the additional education, learning about scanning and for the handling film onsite type of thing. Once graduated they may shoot film and need scans, so they learn from the bottom up. 

Yes, any fool can buy a scanner...as long as they are a rich fool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...