Jump to content

Anyone try the Lasergraphics Archivist scanner?


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Site Sponsor
2 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Scanning is essentially printing. For it to work, the liquid has to have the same refractive index as the film's acetate base. Scanners that use proper wet gates, typically use perc for that reason. The Arriscan uses something different, I believe, but I'm not sure what it is. They just say "Specially developed"

 

You're correct. I should have specified that I was talking about typical scratching, not the really deep stuff. Though even that only works to a point.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
1 hour ago, Robert Houllahan said:

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.

Yea you need to keep an eye on it always. I'm thinking about making a dripper apparatus that automatically drips constantly onto the rollers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

So the FF HDS+ "Wet gate" is a set of rollers which applies the Alcohol to the film on both emulsion and base just before the gate?

What are the rollers made of?

Full immersion liquid gates do not contact the film in the picture area like any other scanner these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, Todd Ruel said:

FilmFabriek has one coming out.  This is a relatively recent addition to their web site:  https://filmfabriek.nl/uncategorized/wetgate/

Damn, they listened to me! lol 

That was basically my suggestion when we got the machine originally and they were excited with the ideas I had. I wonder if the delivery system is the same... I will for sure buy one. The current method of delivering liquid doesn't work sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

So the FF HDS+ "Wet gate" is a set of rollers which applies the Alcohol to the film on both emulsion and base just before the gate?

What are the rollers made of?

Full immersion liquid gates do not contact the film in the picture area like any other scanner these days.

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I'd really love to see what they're doing. Who is making the wet gates? Are they just like the FF one with two rollers that get the film wet? There is no real data about it. 

You'd have to ask them. There's also a mod here but for a Retroscan:

That company now has a HDS+ but that video shows a Retroscan Universal MkII with a different light and a wetgate mod.

23 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

This is incorrect. If you scan in CinemaDNG RAW you are getting the post-calibration raw image data. If you scan in Cinema DNG, you are getting the post-calibration/post-grading image data. But again, you keep referring to "your friends" who have this, and you're not basing this on firsthand knowledge. I'd like to know what the test is, I'd like to see the image and I'd like to see it scanned on a scanner you think is doing a better job.

I appreciate the correction, thanks.

On 1/3/2022 at 2:35 PM, Perry Paolantonio said:

The bad things about Lasergraphics scanners are being repeated by a select few disgruntled users, and even some people who don't own the machine and are just repeating what they've heard from others. The fact is, if you talk to most owners, they may have some issues with how the company handles certain things, but they are happy with their machines. I'm in regular contact with at least a dozen ScanStation and Director owners/operators, and only one or two have issues. Of those only one has issues with the picture quality, and even at that, only some of the time.

I have to pull you up on this. I don't need to own a Holden Captiva to have an opinion on it, or to learn from the experiences of others. You sometimes make it sound like the ScanStation is a perfect machine and that Lasergraphics is a fantastic company, and that because you have a great experience you don't see why others may not share the same experience. Yes most of their users are happy, but also most users including professionals will have difficulty working out if their Lasergraphics is not delivering 100% of what it is capable of. I'd be happy to do a comparison sometime against your ScanStation. Just getting them to give you your training can be a pain and take perseverance.

I also agree with what Robert said about the 5K model - there were several companies who oversold it as being more capable than what it was. It wouldn't take me long to find companies that claimed (or still do) that it was the best 4K scanner available. If the companies make that claim, they probably believe it, and so of course they are very satisfied with their scanners. But this is true for less capable scanners as well, there are companies that love their Blackmagic Cintels, their Retroscans, their Tobins, etc. Talk to most Retroscan owners and they've very satisfied with them. So in my opinion user satisfaction isn't necessarily objective.

See?

21 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

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

100%. It's a trade-off between expensive and difficult, or cheap and easy and how satisfied you are with the results.

16 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Damn, they listened to me! lol 

That was basically my suggestion when we got the machine originally and they were excited with the ideas I had. I wonder if the delivery system is the same... I will for sure buy one. The current method of delivering liquid doesn't work sadly. 

I'll bet that more than one of their users probably asked for it.

On 1/4/2022 at 12:50 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

I think it is a Sony Pregius IMX387 which is 5472x3048 and has the same 3.45u pixels as the 6.5K camera.

In 2021 the options for the Archivist were the IMX530 or the IMX342 in an Emergent Vision camera. The only options removed from the ScanStation were: 35mm, the editing table, the camera rail, P/T rollers. Everything else was available for them including HDR, the optical sound reader, and the full 6.5K camera the same as the ScanStations have (the 5.3K camera is probably a better choice anyway since you can scan twice as fast with it). Whether that's changed now I don't know, the website seems to indicate that all three of those options are no longer offered with new Archivists but you'd have to talk to the sales agents - Gencom still lists HDR as an option on their website. Also on the price, the exact same options are priced about 25-50% of what they cost on the ScanStation. They basically slashed the price of everything aggressively to make the product competitive against their main small-format competitor (Filmfabriek) but in doing so they revealed how over-priced the full ScanStation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quick comparison I don't mind sharing (35mm LPP-poly print):

https://www.transfernow.net/dl/2022010542O3FZT2
Password: rind-liv_idly-laborer-catcher-foothold.projectionist

I see a lot of claims about this scanner vs that but rarely does anyone actually do a proper show and tell. One of the scans is done on a modded Retroscan, the other on a Lasergrapics ScanStation. You should be able to work out which is which but in saying that it's still possible to improve the Retroscan's performance with another mod that hasn't yet been done.

*In the unlikely event that someone wants to use this for a commercial purpose there will be a fee involved and I will provide the Prores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

You sometimes make it sound like the ScanStation is a perfect machine and that Lasergraphics is a fantastic company, and that because you have a great experience you don't see why others may not share the same experience.

At the moment, they are making the best scanners out there for the vast majority of uses in the 8mm-35mm market (ScanStation) and for the extremely high end 35mm market (Director). This is based on almost 8 years of daily use with the ScanStation, through several major upgrades. When I say "best" I'm taking several factors into consideration: 

  1. Picture Quality
  2. Ease of use
  3. Technical Support
  4. Reliability
  5. Ease of upgrades
  6. Availability of upgrades

Obviously the Archivist and SSP are different in some respects as they're not upgradeable, but the underlying machine is similar enough that the most important parts: quality, ease of use, technical support and reliability are all there. 

I don't think they're perfect by any means, but they're willing to change them and adjust them to make them better if you present a compelling enough case. There are quite a few changes that were made to the software (and some to the hardware) that were a direct result of users asking for them (HDR, higher resolutions, the Sony IMX cameras, improvements to Super 8 Stability, scanning unslit double 8mm and double Super 8, 70mm scanning, user adjustable tension controls, and the list goes on). 

My business relies on that machine to be there, working, all the time. In 8 years we have had exactly one hardware problem, and it was a painless fix to get it back up and running, with a swapped module. It is an absolute tank, and is very well engineered. 

If something better comes along, I'm perfectly happy to give it a look. but as of this time, there is nothing in the same class. 

11 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

Talk to most Retroscan owners and they've very satisfied with them.

If you have low expectations, sure, it's fine. 

 

11 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

Also on the price, the exact same options are priced about 25-50% of what they cost on the ScanStation. They basically slashed the price of everything aggressively to make the product competitive against their main small-format competitor (Filmfabriek) but in doing so they revealed how over-priced the full ScanStation is.

They are not the "exact same options" -- Many of the items you're referring to are physically different. The gates, for example, are not interchangeable. On the Archivist, they're a totally different design, smaller, and probably cost a lot less to manufacture. The platters are not aluminum, they're plastic. The rollers aren't chromed, they're delrin. Software options would be the same, yes. but hardware-wise, there are quite a few differences between the ScanStation and the Archivist, so you really can't do an apples-to-apples comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

At the moment, they are making the best scanners out there for the vast majority of uses in the 8mm-35mm market (ScanStation) and for the extremely high end 35mm market (Director). This is based on almost 8 years of daily use with the ScanStation, through several major upgrades. When I say "best" I'm taking several factors into consideration:

The two things you left out is 1. multiplicity of formats, and 2. scans to Prores completely stable. Those two features alone improve the overall value of the machine well above competing products.

23 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

The rollers aren't chromed, they're delrin.

Please stop misinforming people. The Chrome Rollers are an option:
xZuJwUE.png

I've removed the 2021 prices but they aren't expensive. The Archivist fully-loaded last year, with HDR with the Optical Soundtrack Reader (which you see clearly above), with the Chrome rollers and with the warped-film kit was about $60K USD with a 16/8 Scanstation with the same options costing more than twice that.

25 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

The gates, for example, are not interchangeable. On the Archivist, they're a totally different design, smaller, and probably cost a lot less to manufacture.

More likely they're designed to be incompatible with the more expensive scanner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Baxter said:

Please stop misinforming people. The Chrome Rollers are an option:

Haha. That's rich. 

I wasn't aware that chrome rollers are an option, since it's not listed on their web site. I haven't priced this machine out, because we don't have a need for one of these. that being said, the rollers are only one thing on a list of major differences between the two scanners. 

 

1 hour ago, Dan Baxter said:

More likely they're designed to be incompatible with the more expensive scanner.

Take one look at the two side by side. You will see that there are significant differences between them that would affect the cost immensely: differences in the film path, the lack of an optical soundtrack reader on the Archivist (it's software only), the platters, the base/table setup. And that's just the outside. It's very possible the types of hybrid servo-stepper motors they're using are much less powerful than the ones in the ScanStation (as an 8/16 only machine, it wouldn't require the same kind of motors you'd need for 35mm, which is a lot more mass to move). Plus the cheaper plastic platters weigh less, cutting down on the need for heavy duty motors. (but this is a guess on my part, I haven't looked inside one to compare).

 

1 hour ago, Dan Baxter said:

The Archivist fully-loaded last year, with HDR with the Optical Soundtrack Reader (which you see clearly above)

Speaking of misinformation...

The Archivist does not offer HDR scanning. A couple of the early machines had it before the configuration was changed. 

And just to reiterate, the Archivist DOES NOT have a dedicated optical soundtrack reader. Rarely do I use Bold, Italic and Underline, but just to make it clear, neither of the two things you're quoting above exist on the Archivist as you can purchase it today.

The Archivist uses something along the lines of AEO-Light to decode the track in software, which has been an option since the ScanStation Personal. This is clear from the specs. The ScanStation and Director (and maybe the SSP) have a second camera and light setup to handle optical tracks.

So please do not accuse me of misinforming people because I didn't know chrome rollers were an option. If anyone is spreading misinformation, it's you. Instead of relying on a price sheet from last year that you know includes items that they no longer offer for the Archivst, you could have very easily determined that this is the case by either:

1) Looking at the web site, the specs, and the pictures of the machines they provide

2) Contacting Galileo digital to confirm

I just did both of those things. 

Bottom line: the ScanStation is not an overpriced Archivist. It's a completely different machine. The Archivist shares some of the same DNA as the ScanStation, and it uses basically the same control software. 

Edited by Perry Paolantonio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Haha. That's rich. 

I wasn't aware that chrome rollers are an option, since it's not listed on their web site. I haven't priced this machine out, because we don't have a need for one of these. that being said, the rollers are only one thing on a list of major differences between the two scanners.

It was an option on the SSP as well.

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Speaking of misinformation...

The Archivist does not offer HDR scanning. A couple of the early machines had it before the configuration was changed. 

"Had" it? They still have it. It was an option, it's still listed on Gencom's website, if it's not an option now that's utterly outrageous - how on earth is it acceptable to refuse to give a new customer an important feature that their competitors already have? If you have the software license the Archivist does two-flash HDR scanning, end of story. There are PLENTY of ScanStations that don't have the HDR software license as well (many still running the previous generation imager).

All you're doing is confirming what I said earlier which is that the Archivist is an intentionally crippled ScanStation with some features removed. Lasergraphics have form here, they refused to let ScanStation Personal customers buy the HDR license or have a 6.5K camera upgrade. I'm not the one here speculating over the features, I know what they have and for what it's worth I'm not convinced they would refuse to give the same options to new customers.

Sure, they might have physically different gates. Sure they might have different motors (what do they put in to a 16/8 ScanStation though like this one?) Yes it comes with plastic rollers if you don't pay for the Chrome ones. That does not make it a "completely different machine" at all. What makes it different is purely artificial like the fixed camera so you don't have the option to do 60fps 2K scanning on 16mm like you can on a full ScanStation.

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

And just to reiterate, the Archivist DOES NOT have a dedicated optical soundtrack reader.

Well it did last year when it was launched:

rvIP62b.jpg

But even so let's say this is a mistake on the spec sheet, on the ScanStation it's an optional extra as it is, it's not built in to the base cost.

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Bottom line: the ScanStation is not an overpriced Archivist. It's a completely different machine. The Archivist shares some of the same DNA as the ScanStation, and it uses basically the same control software.

I disagree. Why does the Archivist have 35mm rollers on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

Had" it? They still have it.

I mean, I don't know why I bother, to be honest. I literally contacted Galileo Digital this morning before posting that. The Archivist does not offer HDR. When it was initially released, I believe it may have been an option, but the configuration appears to have changed. If you don't believe me, look at the Lasergraphics web site. Use a primary source for your information not a press release dated last April. It's pretty clear that HDR is *not* an option. I confirmed this with Steve Klenk from Galileo Digital this morning, after looking at the *manufacturer's* web site. 

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

All you're doing is confirming what I said earlier which is that the Archivist is an intentionally crippled ScanStation with some features removed

And again, if you would prefer to ignore the facts, that's your prerogative I suppose. The Archivist does not have an optical track reader. Never did. Don't believe me? Look at the listing for it in the wayback machine, when it was first announced in April, or at the picture on the Gencom site you link to. There is no picture of the optical track module, and if you look at the feature comparison between their three scanners, there's no keykode reading on the Archivist at all. You know why? Because the soundtrack reader is used to read the keykode barcodes on the film. In those pictures there are no mounting points on the deck plate for a soundtrack reader, and the film physically travels up at an angle that would prevent you from running it through an optical reader if one were placed above the mag head as on the ScanStation. I mean, how much more evidence do you need?

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

Lasergraphics have form here, they refused to let ScanStation Personal customers buy the HDR license or have a 6.5K camera upgrade.

Again, as I've pointed out before: the upgrade path for the SSP was the trade-in program to a full scanstation. It was never sold as an upgradeable or modular system, and anyone buying that knew that was the case. What you bought was basically frozen in time, save for software updates. In fact, when you talk to Lasergraphics/Galileo, they often refer to the full scanstation as the "modular" version, but not the SSP or the Archivist. That's because you can pick and choose how you want to configure it at the beginning, like we did (2k, 8/16mm only) and upgrade later (35mm, 5k, HDR, etc). The SSP never had those options. I know this because I asked at the time, when we were thinking of adding a second scanner and that model was one we were considering.

 

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

Sure, they might have physically different gates. Sure they might have different motors (what do they put in to a 16/8 ScanStation though like this one?) Yes it comes with plastic rollers if you don't pay for the Chrome ones. That does not make it a "completely different machine" at all.

They are different machines. the optical soundtrack reader is one huge difference. Without that you can't do keykode capture, you can't do realtime soundtrack scanning, you do your sound processing in software. That module is a camera and lamp system in its own right, more of a data acquisition module, but still, an expensive bit of hardware. eliminating it reduces costs significantly.

In a machine like the archivist, which is 8/16 only, they would likely use different components that cost less, to bring the cost down. Why use a motor that's spec'd for much heavier duty, when you can use a cheaper one that will do the job the machine is designed for? And again, I'm speculating here. I don't know for sure that they're doing this. But I've just been through a lot of motor buying for the scanner we're building and if I were trying to make a machine that cost less, that's one place I'd look to make a change. 

The 8/16 Scanstation you linked to will have the same motors as the one that does 35mm, because that model is upgradeable. Ours was 8/16 when we bought it and when we upgraded to 35mm, we basically got the gates and a license key to enable it. The motors were already sized for 35mm precisely because that machine is meant to be modular. 

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

What makes it different is purely artificial like the fixed camera so you don't have the option to do 60fps 2K scanning on 16mm like you can on a full ScanStation.

This is not "artificial" -- the camera module in the ScanStation is significantly more complex to build, with many more parts to purchase, install and calibrate (and therefore support), and a different (more expensive) lens that can handle the range of gauges the full ScanStation supports. There are multiple motors in the ScanStation camera module, a long linear rail system, two carriages (one for the lens and one for the camera, sensors, etc. Eliminating most of that and stripping it down to just the fixed camera and lens allows you to drop the costs significantly, which is clearly what they've done in the Archivist. 

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

I disagree. Why does the Archivist have 35mm rollers on it?

Because it's cheaper to manufacture a large number of rollers of one type that you use in all your scanners than it is to make special rollers for each model? I mean, economies of scale here... they use the same rollers, I believe, on the ScanStation and Director (at least the chromed ones). And for what it's worth, when I was in college 30 years ago we had MTM fullcoat dubbers. they were purchased for 16mm only, yet they had 16/35mm rollers and sprocket wheels. Because it's cheaper to just use one type than it is to have to supply different ones for different machines. 

 

2 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

But even so let's say this is a mistake on the spec sheet, on the ScanStation it's an optional extra as it is, it's not built in to the base cost.

That must be a new thing, because the ScanStation has had the optical reader from the beginning. Software track reading was only added as an option when the SSP came along. And it requires post processing of the audio, so anyone buying a ScanStation is most likely getting the soundtrack module to do it in real time and not have to waste time processing soundtracks...

 

I hate to go back to the car analogy because that's kind of cliche, but it's apt. If you go to a dealer and buy a stripped down car with no options, then go back and say you want a bunch of features a la carte, they're going to tell you no, you can trade it in to get the model that has those options. How is the Archivist/Scanstation/Director relationship any different than the relationship between an Aircooled VW Beetle, a GTI and a Porsche 911?

 

Edited by Perry Paolantonio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

I mean, I don't know why I bother, to be honest. I literally contacted Galileo Digital this morning before posting that. The Archivist does not offer HDR. When it was initially released, I believe it may have been an option, but the configuration appears to have changed. If you don't believe me, look at the Lasergraphics web site. Use a primary source for your information not a press release dated last April. It's pretty clear that HDR is *not* an option. I confirmed this with Steve Klenk from Galileo Digital this morning, after looking at the *manufacturer's* web site.

All that would mean (if correct) is that they removed a feature previously available. It's the same as a ScanStation though, if you paid for the software license it's licensed to the machine and that's that. I'm not going to argue with you over this - even if Steve told you that I would think if you pushed them they would sell the HDR license since other companies already have it on their ones.

Gencom is the regional sales agent, that is a primary source. Steve Klenk doesn't even have the Archivist on his website.

10 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

In fact, when you talk to Lasergraphics/Galileo, they often refer to the full scanstation as the "modular" version, but not the SSP or the Archivist. That's because you can pick and choose how you want to configure it at the beginning, like we did (2k, 8/16mm only) and upgrade later (35mm, 5k, HDR, etc).

You can do the same with the Archivist. Chrome rollers, gate options, warped-film kits, magnetic audio heads, etc. The Scanstation Personal also had options: optical sound reader, chrome rollers, magnetic sound heads, failed splice recovery software license, gate options. It's was as "modular" as anything.

21 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Eliminating most of that and stripping it down to just the fixed camera and lens allows you to drop the costs significantly, which is clearly what they've done in the Archivist.

The list price on the 6.5K upgrade for the ScanStation is $25K right? My point was just that they could offer that as an upgrade if they wanted to (to either a ScanStation Personal or an Archivist customer). Yes the Archivist has a cheaper lens that is correct.

24 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

That must be a new thing, because the ScanStation has had the optical reader from the beginning.

I'll send you the 2021 price sheet for the ScanStation from GD and you can see for yourself it's an optional extra/module/product/whatever you want to call it. From what I understand prices go up this year so it'll be out of date of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dan Baxter said:

Gencom is the regional sales agent, that is a primary source. Steve Klenk doesn't even have the Archivist on his website.

Galileo Digital is the worldwide reseller. I believe they work with local sales agents which is probably why the prices you're seeing there are higher - the local agent is marking it up, maybe? This is no different than the VARs who used to sell editing systems like Avid or Media 100, back in the day. They provide you with additional services like local support, training, and system configuration. 

26 minutes ago, Dan Baxter said:

You can do the same with the Archivist. Chrome rollers, gate options, warped-film kits, magnetic audio heads, etc. The Scanstation Personal also had options: optical sound reader, chrome rollers, magnetic sound heads, failed splice recovery software license, gate options. It's was as "modular" as anything.

The "modules" that make the ScanStation modular are the big things, like the camera and optical track reader, and future features that haven't come out yet. They are Upgrades. There are some options on the Archivist and the SSP,  but you cannot, for example, upgrade an Archivist to do 6.5k and HDR. Not only don't they sell it that way, but there appear to be physical differences between the machines that would prevent things like module swaps, even though the scanners have the same basic form factor.

The archivist has a different film path, different gates, a different camera assembly. I bet you can't just plug a ScanStation camera  module onto an Archivist base. If you overlay the images of the two in photoshop, you'll see that the Archivist camera module sits lower, and the gates are shorter. This strongly suggests that the ScanStation modules can't be directly used on this machine. (I'm speculating here but there are enough physical differences that I'm pretty confident - the Archivist deck plate is configured differently than the ScanStation). 

I *know* you can't add an optical track module to the Archivist because there would be nowhere to attach it. It would  require physical modifications to the deck plate (holes for the mounting bolts, as well as installation of registration pins to mate with the module's base). I know this because I've personally removed and replaced ours. 

*Could* they make it modular? Sure. But that's not how this model is sold, so I don't understand why you keep going on about that. If you want modular, you pay a premium and get a ScanStation. The Archivist is less expensive because it's less expensive to make, because it's a different machine 

Edited by Perry Paolantonio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

There are some options on the Archivist and the SSP,  but you cannot, for example, upgrade an Archivist to do 6.5k and HDR.

My friend's Archivist has both 6.5K and HDR. As it has a fixed camera you only get 6.5K for 16mm not 8mm, and doing that locks you into scanning at a maximum speed of 15fps in SDR for 16mm so like I said the trade-off is you can't do high-speed scanning you can only do 15fps or slower for 16mm.

8 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Galileo Digital is the worldwide reseller. I believe they work with local sales agents which is probably why the prices you're seeing there are higher - the local agent is marking it up, maybe?

I'm talking about the GD pricing, and I've sent you last year's price/configuration sheet for the ScanStation. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "Galileo Digital is the worldwide reseller". Their website might say that but all I understand that to mean is that they're the sales agent for where there isn't a regional one. I mean look at the GD website, it also claims that the Director is the world's only 10K scanner with HDR - that's not true either. Plus their website is like 6 or 7 years out of date - this page says the ScanStation has no HDR option. That was added in 2017 so that is at least 5 years out of date and probably more. And the Lasergraphic website has several misleading images with the Arriscan and makes false claims about it like this: "Unfortunately, conventional film scanners (e.g. ARRISCAN, DFT Scanity, and others) have been optimized to primarily scan negative film.  Consequently, these scanners are simply incapable of properly scanning print film.  The result is that shadow detail is either entirely missing or very noisy." That's not true at all, so I wouldn't really go off those websites as discerning truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

I literally contacted Galileo Digital this morning before posting that. The Archivist does not offer HDR.

Look, I just want to clarify that I don't doubt for one second that you talked to Steve Klink today and he told you "no HDR on the Archivist". I doubt what he's telling you, not that he told you that. You could be right, maybe you can't buy it now with the features originally offered, but my hypothesis is that they would still sell the features to those who asked for them, they just aren't going to "offer them" upfront. I'm not trying to pick a fight over it, and I don't know why you'd be invested in saying it doesn't offer HDR (especially off the back of a single conversation with Steve Klink). If I knew someone who wanted to buy one I would tell them to push for the HDR option.

There is a way to make it technically incapable of HDR and that's if they put in a lower-intensity light. If it can't flash bright enough for HDR then it won't be able to do it software license or not, so that's an outside possibility that they may have changed the light. That wouldn't prevent them putting in the brighter light though for customers asking for it.

Regardless of what the options are now on new machines, some existing Archivists have the HDR license and others don't, the same is true for the ScanStation, and the ScanStation Personals do not have the HDR option available. The options on the Archivist are configured in the same way as the ScanStation, it's just that they all cost between 25-50% of what they cost on the ScanStation and that includes the mag audio readers etc (which so far as I'm aware those are completely identical).

Edited by Dan Baxter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

My friend's Archivist has both 6.5K and HDR. As it has a fixed camera you only get 6.5K for 16mm not 8mm, and doing that locks you into scanning at a maximum speed of 15fps in SDR for 16mm so like I said the trade-off is you can't do high-speed scanning you can only do 15fps or slower for 16mm.

As I said, the initial specs were in flux when this machine came out. It's very possible there are some one-offs out there with special features. 

 

7 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

I doubt what he's telling you, not that he told you that.

Ok. that's fine if you don't want to believe it.

But just for reference, because you brought it up ("ScanStation Personals do not have the HDR option available"): there was no technical reason why HDR couldn't have been added to the SSP. It was a business decision. Enabling HDR is purely a software licensing thing.

The 6.5k camera is a different issue on those machines because that requires engineering work. Of course the camera *can* be changed on them, but that's not how they're sold. Maybe in the future they'll offer a version with higher resolution cameras.

 

My whole argument here is not that you keep saying the Archivist is a crippled ScanStation. It's actually quite a capable machine for what it is. But it's a different machine, both physically and in how it's configured and sold. Yes, there are *some* models out there from the beginning that are probably a bit different, from before they tweaked the configurations (perhaps they were worried about poaching sales of their more expensive scanners, and made those changes, I don't know). 

 

7 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

There is a way to make it technically incapable of HDR and that's if they put in a lower-intensity light. If it can't flash bright enough for HDR then it won't be able to do it software license or not, so that's an outside possibility that they may have changed the light. That wouldn't prevent them putting in the brighter light though for customers asking for it.

No, that's not how HDR in the ScanStation works.

Again, i'm not saying they *can't* make that a possibility (and the fact that some early machines may have it is evidence of that), I'm saying that they have chosen not to to differentiate the models. But other features, like cameras, optical readers and other physical differences are what makes them different machines. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

As I said, the initial specs were in flux when this machine came out. It's very possible there are some one-offs out there with special features.

The reason why this is a strange explanation is because this pricing and the options were shown to clients last year. Some of them would have bought their Archivists with every option they wanted from the start, and others would probably have said "I will buy these options later if we feel we need them". If a customer bought an Archivist last year, and they are later told they can no longer buy an important feature they were previously shown was an optional extra for their machine that would be outrageous behaviour. If you want to go to your car analogy that would be like the dealership telling you all the optional extras you can buy for your new car that you can have now or later if you wish, and then when you go back to them to get the extras you wanted a few months later they say "no we don't want to sell you that any more buy a more expensive car instead". The Archivist is modular like the ScanStation you configure it how you want with whatever options you want to buy, and you are supposed to be able to buy those options later if you wish.

My point is that you and I both know there are existing machines with said features, so anyone who is interested in buying one is most certainly entitled in my opinion to say to the sales agent "I want the same options that you sold to other customers". I don't understand why you want to speak on LG's behalf - yes their new policy may very well be "no HDR on Archivists" but how is that going to look in practise? What are they going to say to customers who assert "you told me I could buy that option when I bought my machine"? Are they somehow going to keep track of who they showed that option to and who they didn't to create the haves and the have nots? What are they going to say to someone who says "my competitor across the street has that option"? Neither of us knows the answer to these questions, so stating that something is set in stone because the sales agent told you that in my opinion doesn't make it gospel, as far as I'm concerned that's just rhetoric the sales agent was told to say and proof will be in the pudding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 8:30 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:
On 1/4/2022 at 8:15 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

1) Wet gate... we really needed a wet gate so we didn't have to do as much post cleanup and it works! 

It's not a wetgate. It's a wet gate. It uses Isopropyl alcohol so it doesn't do the same thing as a proper wet gate with perc or trichlor, which have the same refractive index as the film base, to fill scratches. And at that, with a diffuse light source like the HDS is using, a proper wetgate would be of minimal value because the light isn't collimated.

Does it clean the film right before it enters the gate? Probably yes. I mean, you can use 99.9% isopropyl to clean film and it works fine. Our Lipsner Smith Excel 1100 uses it. But is it performing the same function as a wet gate? It is not. 

Dude, it's a wet gate. It's wetting the film as it passes through. The delivery method doesn't have to define what it's called, or the solvent used. I've never used another scanner with a wetgate using a different solvent, so i can't compare. Anyway, I couldnt care less about what people call it, or what the old fashioned machines used to deliver it.

This simple method the HDS uses with just two glossy paint rollers does a terrific job of filling in cracks and scratches before being photographed. Sometimes the most simple methods are the best! And you haven't used one, so i'm not sure how you can questions it's effectiveness

Also regarding refractive index, i don't know what the refractive index of acetate or polyester film bases are. But i'm sure someone on here can pretent to know or make it up. Here's what google told me the two solvents are:

Iso 

1.3772 at 20°C Reference

Perc

1.519 reference

I'm not sure your point regarding film cleaning? this isnt their purpose. Sure, for arguments sake - the rollers would probably lift a bit of loose dirt, but it would remain trapped there on the roller and probably end up back on the film a few ft down. 

I don't have a film cleaning machine, nor have I ever used one, but i was under the impression the buffers (i suspect paint rollers) rotate while being sprayed with fresh solvent to allow the dirt to fling off. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andrew Wise said:

I don't have a film cleaning machine, nor have I ever used one, but i was under the impression the buffers (i suspect paint rollers) rotate while being sprayed with fresh solvent to allow the dirt to fling off. 

They do not fling it off. The dirt is basically absorbed down into the saturated roller. On a machine like the Lipsner Smith Excel 1100, one set of 4 rollers is wet, saturated with isopropyl alcohol, and they spin in the opposite direction of the film. this minimizes the contact with the film, to prevent scratching. The second set of rollers are dry and they're at the beginning the drying process, before the film goes through an air knife that completely evaporates any remaining alcohol. 

The rollers do get dirty and need to be washed, but unless they're really bad, they do not scratch the film. We have several complete sets for our film cleaner, so we always have at least a few at the ready and we change the rollers as soon as we  see they're dirty.

The rollers on the HDS+ will also get dirty if you feed dirty film through it. Alcohol is a common cleaning agent for film. If there is dirt on the film, and the rollers are touching the film. the alcohol will dissolve some of the stuff on that film and will lift that dirt off. It will eventually build up on the rollers.  The nap on those rollers on the HDS is very small, and with a very small diameter, there's not much surface area either. There's not a lot of place for the dirt to go, so I would imagine that on a dirty film they'd get pretty dirty, pretty quickly, unless they're not really touching the film much (in which case, see Rob Houllahan's post above about the level of coverage of the solvent on the film). 

Triacetate film has a refractive index of 1.48, almost the same as Perc, but pretty far from Alcohol. 

I'm not doubting that the alcohol based system on the HDS does nothing at all, it clearly does something. But there's a reason "old fashioned machines" used the solvents they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

But there's a reason "old fashioned machines" used the solvents they do. 

The main reason is that they were (1.) designed for restoration and (2.) far too slow to use something as fast drying as Isopropyl.

The HDS+ solution on the other hand is designed not for professional restoration but for home movies.

15 hours ago, Andrew Wise said:

I don't have a film cleaning machine, nor have I ever used one, but i was under the impression the buffers (i suspect paint rollers) rotate while being sprayed with fresh solvent to allow the dirt to fling off.

I would recommend you get a Neil Research Labs cleaning machine (Film-O-Clean).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Baxter said:

I would recommend you get a Neil Research Labs cleaning machine (Film-O-Clean).

How easy are these machines to get?  When I go to Roy Neil's web site, there is a bunch of gibberish code.  (Safari or Firefox, makes no difference.  I get the same result.)

I like the look of this little machine, but I figure that if the web site is that buggy and not up-to-date, how reliable is the vendor or his product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
18 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

The main reason is that they were (1.) designed for restoration and (2.) far too slow to use something as fast drying as Isopropyl.

The HDS+ solution on the other hand is designed not for professional restoration but for home movies.

I would recommend you get a Neil Research Labs cleaning machine (Film-O-Clean).

I built a bench top cleaner similar to this with a set of PTR rollers and a Anti-Static brush.

It does not take the place of a "real" cleaner like a Lipsner XL1100 or a full immersion ultrasonic cleaner.

 

1866329515_BenchtopCleaner.thumb.jpg.73fb4b7598db2f72a73f357bbda59ac6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I built a bench top cleaner similar to this with a set of PTR rollers and a Anti-Static brush.1866329515_BenchtopCleaner.thumb.jpg.73fb4b7598db2f72a73f357bbda59ac6.jpg

Two questions:

1)  Does it work?

2)  How much would you charge to build and sell me one?  (Unlike the folks on the Kinograph forum web site, I have no desire to DIY.  Not my area of expertise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...