Jump to content

Anyone try the Lasergraphics Archivist scanner?


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Recommended Posts

  • Site Sponsor

The old adage applies... Good, Fast, Cheap... pick any two...

I would say that most likely the ArriscanXT probably is what you want if you are looking for the best technical picture quality in a scan. True RGB scanning with a monochrome sensor and in 2-flash it is real 16 bit precision. 6K to 4K or 2K  oversampling for Mr Nyquist. The ALEV sensor that Arri uses / has manufactured is something that Arri has allot more technical and manufacturing control over than a company using an off the shelf machine vision camera and the ALEV was designed from the get go to be a cinema sensor. Plus a full immersion liquid gate system is on offer from Arri. Nobody ever got fired for using an Arri camera or scanner their color science is known to be the best available.

If you are a smaller archive not working on new studio film or high end restoration you probably cannot afford to scan on the ArriXT and so there are any number of good solutions with various levels of compromise.

The 6.5k Scan Station (or Xena) will make you 2K or 4K scans which are probably reasonably close to the Arri when run in 6.5K mode with 2-flash that yields 14bit precision from the 12bit Sony sensor. There is also the advantage of 6K to 4K (or 2K) over-sampled rez scans. I think that puts the 6.5K Scan Station at 7.5FPS when run that way and it can scan direct to ProRes4444 saving a step converting DPX to ProRes.

4K scans in single flash 12-bit from Scan Station Xena Kinetta or HDS+ or any number of scanners using the off the shelf Sony Pregius 4K and 6.5K sensors will also yield excellent results which would have been unobtainable just five years ago for the price and speed.

Even the RetroScan can make pretty good scans right out of the box and if you swap out the provided 2K sensor and mod it with a camera like the 4K Pregius (4112x3008 12bit) you can make some really good scans on the cheap that will just probably need allot more work in post to stabilize.

The best scanner is the one that gets the job done to the required specs in the time frame and budget allowed for.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The gates on the RS? Well, they are nothing but film supports. I need warped film gates for many of my films. Something that can hold warped film half-ass flat.

The 3rd-party warped-film gates are designed and work flawlessly take a look at this photo. The gate is there fitted in-between the guides (but as it's a 3d-printed prototype it doesn't look like much). They will hopefully be available soonish as a 3rd-party product.

7 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

Even the RetroScan can make pretty good scans right out of the box and if you swap out the provided 2K sensor and mod it with a camera like the 4K Pregius (4112x3008 12bit) you can make some really good scans on the cheap that will just probably need allot more work in post to stabilize.

Don't forget the light. The crappy low-CRI white light it has will do a poor job no matter what colour camera is used. And without proper gates you can't scan archival film (including home movies) properly at all. It took my mate months to design them, but they're working very well and just need to be machined and patented. I don't know how many Retroscan users would actually buy them, but it is something those machines desperately need if you want them to be half-decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

As far as I'm concerned...Lasergraphics stinks with customer service. I've written about the issues extensively here. No time to keep beating a dead horse. (Perry)

And in the big picture, even if Lasergraphics is the best scanner in the world...you have to be able to afford one and you have to pay them money to answer their emails. 

Daniel, you're taking your LG criticism/bashing far too far. All I wanted to get across there was the complaints that some of the owners currently have, that doesn't paint the entire company in a bad light. They make good products and they're still current. How many other tri-format (35/16/8) professional quality scanners are there that are actually current tech? Not many - DCS Xena and Kinetta and that's about it.

Why not instead post about your own experiences with the Moviestuff? That is the space where there is genuine room for advancement for the small users like yourself - you can ask me about this one. It's got a 4K camera, a high CRI light, warped-film gates (the prototype 16mm one is fitted in that pic) and it's going to be used for software development to create 3rd-party capture software capable of controlling these things properly. Some people think it's a fool's endeavour to improve Moviestuff's product, but we think it can be made into a very capable scanner. Remember what companies were doing a decade ago (and even before that) was gutting out Rank-Cintel Telecines and making 2K digital scanners out of them, and as Robert has pointed a few times DCS has commercialised that option by providing a kit to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 2:41 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Exactly. Same goes for cameras, lenses, tripods, lights. Everyone is so laser focused on the upper echelon, nobody contemplates that time spent is still time spent. It's not like a full immersion wet gate, negates digital cleanup. You still need to do all the post work to get the image perfect, the wet gate simply gives you a better starting position. 

What does the wet gate do to res? With still scans, wet mounting reduces res.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 10:05 PM, Dan Baxter said:

Sorry let me clarrify, I certainly didn't mean to say you can't use it for restoration. I just see it as a different design where Filmfabriek has decided that "this is good enough for our price-point" if you understand what I mean. Instead of chasing perfection with a system that would cost a fortune, they've gone with a simpler and cheaper one.

I don't mean that in a pejorative way - there are companies that offer affordable home movie transfers off those machines and off ScanStations as well, so these days people don't have to go with the lower-quality offered by the companies using Tobins or Retroscans.

 

Everything has its price Dan. No need to make excuses for the Retroscan. If you have no budget...the Retroscan is the only scanner choice.

When I bought mine, I sold my 23 yo Harley 883 for $2600. I put a couple thousand $$ on my maxed our credit card and a lady loaned me the rest. I didn't buy the scanner to make a penny, I bought it to preserve history...cine' history. 

If I had to scan people's films for $$, I'd hate it. Sure, I will buy an interesting home movie to scan, but I won't scan boring, low end, garbage home movies or movies that do not interest me...even if they offer $$. I won't do it. No time for it. Too much fascinating work I can't get to because of time....and money. 

Time, money, expertise and space are the limiting factors Dan. Money is stored energy...and with money you can buy all 4. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 8:50 PM, Todd Ruel said:

I'm using it for film restoration.  Since I couldn't afford a Scannity with a bespoke $250,000 liquidgate immersion tank, I had to settle for a $40K HDS+, a $10,000 Diamant Film Restoration Suite software license, and a $10,000 Windows workstation to run Diamant.  

The HDS+ greatly reduces vertical lines, but it does not eliminate them entirely.  So I use restoration software to paint it or filter it out.

When you can't afford the equipment that saves you time, you buy other equipment that gets the job done but costs you time.  In the fast/cheap/good model, I had to choose "cheap" and "good".  

Bottom line:  there are collections of cheaper tools out there that can achieve the same results as the top-of-the-line tools.  You just have to weigh and accept the tradeoffs.  The Filmfabriek HDS+, far from being a toy or a home movie transfer machine (pejorative terms IMO) is a professional tool that helps me get the job done.

I hope it helps me earn my way toward a ScanStation or something better.  Until then, the HDS+ is a great film scanner for me.

 

GD...who calls the HDS+ a toy? Let me guess.

I'd be thrilled to get one. If I was young and could do a backflip I would. 

How did you get into all this work?

You had mentioned you do it as a side gig for extra income. I think you said made $$ in the stock market and bought the scanner to go into the stock footage biz. But that is very odd for someone with no film background to go into, especially the restoration end of things. 

Well, when you hit the big time and can get a ScanStation you can also sell a manual and DVD series on how to work one. That is the sad thing about open content work. While it is very rewarding to do only as you please, most of the time, there will never be any 'hitting it big' unless you happen to be Prelinger. 

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

On 1/9/2022 at 10:39 AM, Dan Baxter said:

I think the Neil one is sold here, and you can buy Kelmars as well and convert those to small format.

Looks like the film cleaner is extinct. Also, a foreign company. Why can't US companies make an affordable film cleaner??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 9:53 PM, Todd Ruel said:

All good.  Just looking for another solution.  I have a vintage Ecco, but it takes forever to clean a film with that machine.  The Film-O-Clean MK 3 on the Wittner-Cinetec site is $1,264, so I'm looking for something less costly (if possible).  Can't possibly afford a Lipsner-Smith.

Your machine looks very nice!

 

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/showpic.cgi?dir=uploads0503&file=EccoFilmCleanersmall.jpg

How long does it take to clean?  Do you like cleaning by hand with rewinds better?

Yes, film cleaning is a pain. 

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/showpic.cgi?dir=uploads0503&file=FOC1small.jpg

8mm Forum: Product Review: Film-O-Clean (film-tech.com)

I'm thinking the Film-O-Clean won't handle filthy films. 

Film is pretty filthy stuff! – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection (wordpress.com)

This is from just a few feet of film I deal with.

cleaning-dirt-from-16mm-film-d-d-teoli-j

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

On 1/10/2022 at 1:18 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

Thanks that full set of 7 small and 2 large PTR holders and the Electrostatic brush would push the cost of that bench cleaner I built way over $1200.00

I think the last I looked the larger PTR roller holder pairs alone were $8-900.00 from the now defunct company in Canada that made them.

 

Everything is getting hard to get. FilmFabriek companied they had trouble getting parts. I try to stock up on items if I can afford it.

I won't get into politics, but if things escalate in the world and chips are under fire, more than they are now, we will really be screwed. My Epson ink has gone from $55 to $79 per cartridge. It has a big gold-plated chip right on top. And I use 9 of the cartridges. Maybe the next step is... I will have to buy outdated ink on eBay? Jeeesus, what a mess.

m-disc-boil-test-d.d.teoli-jr-2.jpg?w=76

 

M-Disc has gone from $2.15 a disc to $3 a disc. And they were hard to get  for months. Verbatim discontinued their affordable M-Disc. ($1 per disc.)  Maybe their license expired? 

Right now I need 700 - 800 M-Disc for my VHS archive. All I have is 67. I could never afford to bulk up on them when they were cheaper. I would just buy a few hundred $ worth every so often. 

 

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

On 1/10/2022 at 11:43 AM, Frank Wylie said:

1.  Lipsner Smith Cleaning machines were not specifically designed for restoration work; they were designed for cleaning printing intermediates during release printing.

2.  Perchlorethylene evaporates even faster than Isopropoyl when used in one of these machines with heated supply and air knives, PLUS these machines easily keep pace with alchohol machines.

That being said, I won't debate you on the above.  These are clearly incorrect statements.

I've used these machines for 3 decades. 

Like Perry, I don't know why I bother; but when you don't dispute bad information on sites like these, the incorrect statements somehow become facts, which they are NOT.

 

If you are using fast drying cleaners, you may be leaving lots of dirt on your films. Just depends on the machine and process, I guess. I've never used one. I can only say when I use a fast drying film cleaner by hand, it leaves lots of dirt as compared to a slow drying film cleaner.

What about these ultrasonic cleaners? But that is another thread.

Now, where are the photos of you and your cleaning machines in action?

I don't get it. you are supposed to be imaged based people...put in some photos with your text once in a while.

s-l1600.jpg

Lipsner Smith CF8200 HFE Film Cleaner

Photo: eBay 

Fair Use

That would make a great post for this forum. A rundown on film cleaners!

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

On 1/11/2022 at 5:31 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

It might be worth noting that the Liquid Gate for the Scannity costs more than a Scan Station. It fully immerses the whole lamp and optics in a wild looking and large chamber.

 

It is for the 'real' big boys Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 6:04 PM, Dan Baxter said:

Oh right, you're correct on that. So yes I mean the "traditional" wetgate systems for scanning on Arris or DFTs etc as opposed to ultrasonic cleaning or wetgate printing (and there is a much much longer history of wetgate printing). My point was basically that the manufacturers were not designing those systems for cheap home movie transfers, they were for restoration whereas it seems that Filmfabriek's system is designed more for home movies and not restoration. The "wetgate" effect is not equal compared to a system that uses Perc.

 

The wet gate is not that big a deal to me. But how is the FilmFabriek with warped film? Does it offer a warped gate or is it like the Retroscan and film just runs with no flattening  to it at all?

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

On 1/3/2022 at 10:57 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

There are two ways to make a "Wet" gate.

1. Some kind of wiper or roller that wets the film before the gate and then either enough time or a air knife to dry the film before it winds after the gate. This method has been used many times for many years going back to SD Rank Telecine. It works, sort of, and the liquid is not consistently applied nor really "thick" enough all the time.

2. Full immersion in liquid where there is a pump system to constantly circulate the liquid and enough depth so the optical properties work well on the base and the optical glass window is out of the image plane. This works exceedingly well and can fully fill in even the worst base scratches.

One of these methods is relatively easy to impliment, one is much more expensive and complex.

The advantage of a well done liquid gate scan is not just reducing the restoration seat time so it can be spent on other work but also to make the scratch removal consistent. As in if you send work to one artist with a good eye and skills you get good results, if you send work to a restoration mill with a ton of noobs their scratch work might be all over the place.

YMMV.

 

OK, thanks for the info Robert.

How much res is lost with wet gate? 5%? 10% Do you have any test comparison photos?

Wet mounting film for scans reduces res on flatbed scanner. 

Is this the SD Rank Telecine? I like to 'see' what is being talked about.

watermark.cfm?strFileType=ProductLarge&s

 

 

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

On 1/4/2022 at 4:05 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea it's these really interesting fine sponge with microfiber tips. They actually touch the film on both sides and will fill in any gaps. They do not rotate, they are stationary as well. The liquid is poured directly onto the sponge every few minutes when using them and excess is captured into a cup. We've tested the system quite a lot and it really works well at around 3 - 5fps, much above 5fps and there isn't enough time for the alcohol to get into the film in order for it to work well. 

My favorite test is a back coating scratch from one of the films you processed for me in the 90's. The CP 16 destroyed it, the scratch(s) were so deep, there was never any hope of recovery. Yet all these years, on a hunch I tried it and holy crap, scratch(s) are barely visible. Easy to hide with some software now. To me, that was the most incredible fix, considering it was damaged IN camera. I have many other examples, including some rolls that Fotokem messed up and couldn't fix, yet we had no problem resolving. 

792432806_ScreenShot2022-01-04at1_03_55AM.thumb.png.70d49d4132aaa9830558af962a16fae4.png775262199_ScreenShot2022-01-04at1_03_22AM.thumb.png.da819f5f6bb1921cf8cff513574aa9d3.png

 

Thanks Tyler...impressive. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

The wet gate is not that big a deal to me. But how is the FilmFabriek with warped film? Does it offer a warped gate or is it like the Retroscan and film just runs with no flattening  to it at all?

It doesn't do well with warped film due to the laser perf pickup system. I haven't yet really had too much warped film to test however, maybe someday I'll work on it and see if I can make it better. A sprocket drive can work better for warped film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

OK, thanks for the info Robert.

How much res is lost with wet gate? 5%? 10% Do you have any test comparison photos?

Wet mounting film for scans reduces res on flatbed scanner. 

Is this the SD Rank Telecine? I like to 'see' what is being talked about.

watermark.cfm?strFileType=ProductLarge&s

 

 

That is a Cintel DSX or C-Reality scanner, a late model flying spot machine capable of 2K or 4K scans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2021 at 11:41 AM, Frank Wylie said:

Most "turd  polishing" is done post-scan now days. 

If it's not on the film originally, it won't be on the scan, but you can fake better imagery with noise reduction, dust busting and heavy image manipulation.

As we used to say in the lab, "GIGO:  Garbage in, Garbage out", but now you can put the garbage in a shiny new wrapper...

 

Yes, that is what I'd like. A sharper, steadier scan of the turd. The Retorscan has stabilization issues with warped and clear edge films. You can use stabilization post processing, but it cuts off the image even if overscanned or it does weird things to the image like twist and turn it. Some of these films are really a mess with defects and warp. It is not just the Retroscan. If you get a flat film with black edges, the Retroscan does great.

But the main problem is an old computer likes mine blows out hot air like a blow dryer if I try to do stabilization on video. I have to use a house fan to pump air into the computer to cool it down. So, along with a better cine' scanner...I need a better computer for turd polishing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2021 at 12:21 PM, Perry Paolantonio said:

again with the assumptions...

 

Our experience has been that most archives are not interested in doing their own scans. Or that those who do purchase a scanner eventually give up and have someone else do it for them. In theory, having a scanner in house is a nice idea. In practice, it requires a skilled operator, and most small archives don't have a budget to hire someone to do that work. Once the person who knows how to use it moves on to another job, the institutional knowledge is gone. This is a recurring issue. I can think of two organizations locally where this is the case. 

If one doesn't know this then one doesn't belong in the business of scanning films. If nothing else curiosity about what the settings do should lead one to figure it out. The effects are immediate and obvious, on the preview image in the ScanStation. 

 

I think the problem here is that you're assuming that anyone can/should be able to read a manual and know how to scan a film. That isn't the case any more than handing someone a wrench will make them a competent mechanic. Or giving someone a word processor will make them a novelist. or really any other tool of any trade out there. 

 

That is why you have an extensive DVD/s instructional set and an extensive manual Perry that comes with the scanner.  This gives you a start. Then you work from there. You hopefully have input from other archive employees, and you put your heads together to come up with a useable scan. 

But it takes practice. To take it further, a scanning company could give you modern produced test film dupes of archival material to practice on and see how your scans compares to the scans they did on the DVD as a goal. (Or not in the case of Lasergraphics.)

You know Perry, if you give the same film to 10 scanning companies you will get 10 different scans. So, a lot of scanning and post work is subjective to taste. That is why I said 'useable scan' above. You can perfect it more in post once you got the useable scan.

Everything about film scanning I've learned has been through trial and error. It is tough going, there is no breast feeding with it. I'm just glad I had an extensive background in still photography. 

The other option Perry is for the archives to do nothing. The archive that has a few million feet of film and does not have a few millions of dollars to spend on scans has little choice if they want to digitize their films, Perry.  They may have $100K to spend for a scanner and a budget for a $45k a year operator. 

Listen Perry, you know some archives with good scanners that are just sitting, tell them to loan me the scanner for a 5 years. I will scan all their films for free (but only the ones that interest me) and they share the digital output of these films with my Archive for noncommercial use. 

And as a bonus I will share all my own Archive's cine' scans with them. That is the best deal they will get if their scanner is just sitting and rotting away Perry.

 

 

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

On 12/28/2021 at 6:52 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

I don't think you can go wrong with the LG Archivist if your needs are good 16/8 scans it will vastly outperform the Retroscan and with the new Sony Pregius 5.4K sensor that LG is using the pix quality will be very good and low noise.

Scan Station is also a easy to use machine with pref-stabilization and sound reading while scanning plus many other features that the RetroScan and FilmFabreik cannot match.

The Scan Station is a exceptionally reliable machine with very stable software.

 

Thanks Robert!

You mentioned the FilmFabreik in comparison to the LG Archivist. What areas are lacking with the FilmFabriek Robert?

Of the two, which would do better with warped film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 9:42 PM, Dan Baxter said:

If he can afford it. The Archivist starts at $40K with the word being that the price is going up in 2022. There's also an annual support contract.

Also I'll pull Tyler up on this comment:

Some of the scanners make contact with the picture area of the film all the time, and others don't. On the ScanStation the only part that makes contact is if you use the P/T rollers. The current film path has an oddly placed one on the take-up side which I'm not 100% sure is designed to be bypassed (it probably can be but it doesn't appear to be designed to be), but the normal two on the left can be bypassed. The Kinetta does not let you bypass the P/T rollers as they form part of the film path so you're forced to put film into contact with the scanner, and the Blackmagic Cintel uses "capstans" which are the rollers to either side of the gate that grip the film, plus you have to thread everything through the P/T rollers as well (the older Cintels have traditional sprocket-drives but those still have the mandatory P/T rollers as well). Putting film through a decent scanning machine is more gentile and safer compared to many projectors, and some of them can scan as fast or even faster than 24fps projection.

But some of the low-cost machines like the Retroscan Universal MkI or the Wolverine scanners have poor tension control and can be rough as guts on film.

As far as exposure to the elements goes I think that's a bit misleading. The slow scanners were traditionally operated in "cleanrooms" to reduce exposure to dust. Before archival film is scanned it's checked, prepped, and cleaned. This should happen before projection as well, but often film isn't cleaned before projection at all. Sometimes it would appear even for a show what they do is a test projection and decide whether the amount of dirt in the print is acceptable for the show. If a cinema is showing a first-run movie it's even worse - they typically just played the prints over and over and over without doing anything in-between shows to clean the films and the platter was invented to allow them to show a print for weeks on end.

 

I'll have to catch up on Tyler's complaint to see if it was on the LG or FilmFabriek. I haven't read it as yet.

I can say, for my films, I need ease of rewind to do timed scans as opposed to best light scans. Between the LG or FilmFabriek, which is easier to do rewinds with for timed scans?

Some of the archival material has exposures all over the place...just terrible to work with. Best light scans won't work for many of the films and auto exposure won't work.  

All that can be done is to rewind problem areas of exposure and rescan. And if it needs a third or fourth run, you keep scanning that section until you think you have an acceptable scan. Does not have to be perfect...just pretty good. Get the details down as best as you can and perfect more in post.

Projectors?

Yes, they can be very hard of film.

16mm-projector-shredded-film-d-d-teoli-j

Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr.

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

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

That is why you have an extensive DVD/s instructional set and an extensive manual Perry that comes with the scanner

You do know that DVD is a dead medium, right? It's been years since we built or bought a computer with a DVD drive. And for the record, our company started as a DVD authoring service over 20 years ago, also offered Blu-ray, and I personally authored nearly 1000 titles in the first 15 years we were in business. But yes, I get your point - it could be a download or a PDF or a printed book hand gilded by monks or something. 

You are completely ignoring the fact that for the most part, it isn't necessary to have a manual for this scanner. That was one of Lasergraphics' primary design goals when making this machine - to make it simple to use, and they have absolutely achieved that. You say that's not the case, but you don't use one and clearly never have, so I don't know what to say.

One needs to know very little to figure out how to use it. How to use it well, and how to use it correctly, is beyond the scope of most software manuals you will find. And the reason for that is that with a product as specialized as this, it is assumed you have a baseline of knowledge about the materials you're working with, as well as what should be expected on the output side. Those two things combined should be sufficient to figure out if things are working properly. And if not, you ask the company for help. And by "figure out" I mainly mean knowing the workflow of the specific software, which again, isn't hard to use and has very little to do with the details of film scanning itself. 

BTW, your ridiculous Kettlebell example is completely off the mark. The DVD that's included with that is almost certainly designed to get you to buy more DVDs. Not more Kettlebells. It's a commodity item mass produced in the tens of thousands. I've authored tons of these kinds of DVDs and they're all the same. The Kettlebell isn't the product here, the DVD (and the other ones they almost certainly offer), is what they're selling you. 

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

You know Perry, if you give the same film to 10 scanning companies you will get 10 different scans.

This is true but not for the reasons you think. And so what? All scanners are a bit different and it's not a big deal that they produce slightly different images. Assuming negative film, if they're all scanned log, while they may all look slightly different, everything you need to color grade it to the same result is still there. It's also possible to get completely different scans on the same machine. If, for example, you base calibrate on a frame that's slightly fogged, you will get a different result than base calibrating on a frame that's not fogged. This is why Rob mention's the ArriScan's ability to apply a predefined base cal based on keykode. The ScanStation and Director can do this as well. In practice, it's a bit more complicated than that, especially if you're scanning something like an A/B roll, where you may have a short shot on different stock that has no keykode. 

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

So, a lot of scanning and post work is subjective to taste

Post work, sure - that's subjective. Properly scanned film is not. You don't do it by what you see on your monitor, you do it by what you see on your scopes. And again, it doesn't matter if the color cast is a bit more green on one scanner and a bit more blue on another. As long as you've captured everything you're good to go. Ask any colorist who has worked extensively with film scans - Never have film scanners all produced the same thing. But it doesn't matter, because you have tools to correct for that after the scan is done. 

 

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

The other option Perry is for the archives to do nothing. The archive that has a few million feet of film and does not have a few millions of dollars to spend on scans has little choice if they want to digitize their films, Perry.  They may have $100K to spend for a scanner and a budget for a $45k a year operator. 

This is not how it works. Our experience is that most of the scanners owned by archives sit unused or under-used. There are definitely exceptions to that, but we regularly scan for two clients who have their own scanners, but don't have people to use them. Once the person who knows the machine best leaves, the institutional knowledge is gone, and you have a very expensive dust collector sitting in the corner. 

The calculus for an institution buying a scanner is often "It will cost X to scan this much film, but less if we buy a scanner." Yet more often than not, the costs associated with maintaining and running that scanner are overlooked. And eventually there's nobody to use it. 

Most archives we deal with, and that is our primary business, scan film as they need it. Typically this is funded by someone who needs the film in digital form, such as a filmmaker who wants to use portions in another film. Eventually a lot of work gets done. Is it the most efficient way to do it? no. But it's reality. 

 

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

Listen Perry, you know some archives with good scanners that are just sitting, tell them to loan me the scanner for a 5 years. I will scan all their films for free (but only the ones that interest me) and they share the digital output of these films with my Archive for noncommercial use. 

Best of luck with that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Some of the archival material has exposures all over the place...just terrible to work with. Best light scans won't work for many of the films and auto exposure won't work.  

You're not scanning archival film correctly if you're grading during the scan. The way you scan is to capture everything and then grade it later, scene by scene in software. The tools available in most scanners are not good enough to do this correctly, and they don't offer proper monitoring or scopes for doing real color grading during the scan. Minor tweaks, sure. But the correct method is to make sure you don't clip or crush anything, then deal with it later. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2021 at 11:41 PM, Todd Ruel said:

Wow.

Despite someone's very strong opinon to me that the Archivist would supersede/replace the Filmfabriek HDS+, I think I'll stick with my HDS+.

 It's not a dumbed-down version of a better machine.  It's built like a tank, and it just works.  Software is easy to manage, and it has created great scans for me.  Also, the folks at Filmfabriek (and their US sales rep) have been very responsive to my few, scattered concerns.

It's the same price as the Archivist for the 4K version.  I'm guessing the Archivist was created, because LG realized that the HDS+ as well as Jeff Kreines' Baby Kinetta were cheaper (yet high-quality) competitors in this niche market.

 

Isn't the Kinetta extinct? Or, at least you can't buy them...can you? The HDS+ looks like a beautiful machine. But I worry about your complaint about the sound reproduction. 

I'm thinking Lasergraphics came out with their cheap Archivist because they were figuring out there is not an endless supply of customers that can pay $100K - $150K for their high-priced machine. But am only speculating.

Maybe Lasergraphics just wanted more of the lower end market? Maybe there is an endless supply of $150K scanner customers?

I mean, Bezos came down from his space ride and gave $100 million each to 2 people to give away to charity. I'm not math wizard, but I think $200 million buys 4,000 of the cheap $50K Lasergraphics scanners. Too bad for Lasergraphics Bezos does not have hard-on for film scanning.

But even if rich, don't know I'd buy a Lasergraphics. It is just that I have zero confidence in a company that never answers emails even after years of writing them.

 

Rationing%20Board%20Letter%204.23.1942%2

 

Just shitty service from Lasergraphics. They brought it on themselves. It is not like I'm asking them to type me a GD letter. 

 

<><><><>

 

baia-film-splices-decomposed-d-d-teoli-j

baia-film-splices-decomposed-d-d-teoli-j

Looks like these permanent splices turned out to be not that permanent.

Well, at least the Dupont's poly base held up!

DDTJRAC

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

On 1/1/2022 at 8:30 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

That machine does not have machine vision GPU perf registration which alone puts it in the same category of scanner as the BMD Cintel.

The LG Archivist (Like the Scan Station Personal I have) runs the same software as the full Scan Station and most of the features which Scan Station has are also on the Archivist.

If you want or need professional tools for running a business then these machines costs are pretty reasonable, remember that the Spirit 4K I have cost $2M in 2009 so the $50K or even the $190K for the Scan Station is a comparative bargain. Also the service contract cost is reasonable if it is a primary machine and having it down will cost the business allot of revenue.

GPU perf registration?

Does not having that produce subpar scans with warped film? What about film with clear vs black edges? Is there a problem either way?

The Spirit 4K I have cost $2M in 2009

Wow! I could retire on that! (or half that amount.)

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
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...