Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted December 21, 2022 Premium Member Share Posted December 21, 2022 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: We charge for scanning by the foot. If your reel arrives prepped from a lab, you pay the per-foot rate. If your reel requires prep, you pay an extra $5 to prep the roll plus THE SAME per foot rate, yes. If your reel requires cleaning, you pay extra for cleaning. We recommend that newly shot film is prepped and cleaned at the lab, since that's just best practice. So $5 per 50ft to joint it to a larger reel or $5 per entire reel built? Your scanning rate is the same per foot no matter the format? 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: If the film has an unusually large number of bad splices, then we confer with the client and will fix them all, for a small additional fee. But we do splice repair as a matter of course when prepping old film. It doesn't take that long, it's simply not worth it to get all nickle-and-dimey over something so trivial unless the film is literally falling apart and it will take someone more than 30 minutes to fix it. That happens sometimes (we just did this with an old 16mm workprint with maybe 100 splices or so that had to be replaced), but it's rare. You make it out like all home moves are like this - most, the vast majority - are not. Yea for our restoration jobs, we've found half or so had bad splices that needed to be repaired. We do charge the clients separately for that work. 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: Hollywood is not the center of the universe and is not representative of the hundreds, if not thousands, of film archives around the world. UCLA is a unique archive in its scale and the type of collection it has (and FWIW, we have scanned film that lives there, though for a filmmaker, not for the archive - they don't scan everything in house). Some of our archive clients own perfectly capable scanners, ScanStations even, but continue to bring work to us because of the quality and turnaround times we offer. Sometimes it can take months to get something done internally because of bureaucracy and budget machinations. They also don't necessarily scan film that is being stored there by 3rd parties. We've scanned a few rolls stored there because the client wanted to see what was on the film and UCLA refused to help them. The other problem is the staff aren't necessarily trained well, so the scans they get aren't really reflective on what a proper technician can get out of the scanner. I'm not shocked they'd want to go elsewhere. 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: Only the archives, and collectors of specific kinds of movies (prints, or in some cases things like Super 8 concert footage), want to keep them separate. We are almost never asked to return the film in the original boxes, but we always return the boxes with cross-referenced numbers for the film on the reels. So far every archive we've done, wants the film back in the original containers. We have a system for it, but the process can be very time consuming. 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: You absolutely do, and are, shunning home movies. You just did it in this very sentence. My point here is that you're treating small gauge film as if it's a second class citizen in the film world. That's wrong. It's not, and the people who own that film, even if they're "just" home moveis, are as interested in seeing high quality transfers of it as anyone. They deserve, and get, the same treatment we give any of our commercial clients. The 8mm and Super 8 formats are totally garbage formats. Kodak can't even cut the perf's properly for gosh sakes, not that it even matters as the pulldown claw doesn't fit the perf, but it's a horrible design. What matters is the content on the film and we treat it with great care, including wet gating and doing full restoration. It's just MUCH more fragile than 16mm, you have to be very careful with it. 5 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said: Just a thought, but maybe you're having a hard time trying to sell scanning services because you're using a completely inappropriate machine for that task, while simultaneously telling the world how bad it is and that it scratches your film! I've only run one ad for 2 weeks over the 18 months we've had the scanner. We did garnish a few clients from it, but it was mostly tire kickers. I don't have time for that stuff. Professional clients know what they want, they have a budget and our speciality is fast turn around at a reasonable price. Where I agree, we'd probably get 20% more work if we had a scan station, but we'd have to charge .60/ft to stay in business, where everyone around us is charging between .20-.30/ft. Our machine has a really good imager, arguably with less problems than the 5k imager in the Archivist. So the benefits of getting an Archivist are very limited. We will never be able to afford a full on scan station unless it was used and we were able to get a business loan. Then again... is it worth the 20% increase in business? I'm hoping Blackmagic releases a new scanner at some point that actually works. I'd prefer to go that route because it integrates much nicer in our workflow and with a decent imager, it would be a nice scanner. We would absolutely invest in something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.