Perry Paolantonio

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. 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). 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.

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. 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

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

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. 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). 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.

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: Picture Quality Ease of use Technical Support Reliability Ease of upgrades 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. If you have low expectations, sure, it's fine. 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.

That's the case for any operating system working with that much data. We've been doing restoration with 2k material since 2005 and that machine was only a $2000 Dell tower with a suitable (SCSI!) RAID attached. Your problem is throughput, and that's a hardware thing, not a Windows thing.

And those issues are? 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. Sure. But it's doing very little if it's using alcohol - mostly it's cleaning the film. For scratches that are too deep to be handled by the diffuse light, a perc-based wetgate should help. 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. My understanding is that certain parts are the same, but quite a few things are different internally, and that the modules aren't interchangeable.

In that case, a wet gate would help but alcohol isn't really the right liquid. I wasn't aware the light path has a lens in between. That will focus the photons into a straight beam, which will then refract off of base scratches. The liquid might help a bit in this case, but again, it's a different refractive index than the base, so far from optimal. It's not on the Lasergraphics scanners because there would be no point. A wet gate would be useful as a cleaning tool. it will not make a difference for scratches, which is the main point of it. Lasergraphics integrating sphere diffuses the light in such a way that the light never refracts off the scratches in the first place so they're naturally concealed. There are three scanners, the Lasergraphics ScanStation, the ScanStation Personal (no longer offered), and the Archivist (not a ScanStation, even though it shares a lot of DNA). I don't know the exact camera model. Lasergraphics has used different cameras at different times. In our 6.5k ScanStation it's a camera made by Emergent Vision. I believe the Archivist uses one made by them as well, but it's a completely different camera, though it uses a sensor from the IMX family. Whatever you're seeing is not a problem inherent to Windows. We have been using DPX on versions of Windows since XP, more than 15 years ago. it sounds like there's either an issue with the software that makes the DPX, or with the amount of data that has to be moved around. That's typically more of a hardware thing than an OS thing.

That's a pretty long list of negatives, if you ask me! 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. The Archivist is a new machine, using a Sony IMX sensor and does not have the FPN problems that were in one model revision of the ScanStation and the Personal: the 5k CMOSIS sensor. That was noisy in some situations - if you weren't careful with the scan settings, or if you didn't have it perfectly dialed in, which admittedly, required some intervention from Lasergraphics. We were pretty happy with ours, but the IMX is a far superior sensor and even if you take the FPN problems out of the equation, we would have made that upgrade just for the additional dynamic range. For me, and I'm speaking as someone who has built his own PCs for 25 years, and who is building a film scanner from scratch including the software, this is not a positive feature in a production machine being used in an environment where the system has to perform in an expected way, day in and day out. You want it to operate reliably within fixed parameters so you know what you can and cannot do with it. I bet this makes support somewhat of a nightmare for filmfabriek. There is a reason companies like Apple do so well at what they do: there are guardrails in place to keep things operating within specs so they can fine tune things to perform better, even on what is arguably inferior hardware (though Apple Silicon is pretty cool). There is very little that I can think of that that I would like to override on the ScanStation. Part of what you're paying for is that someone has already worked out all the particular issues with the combination of hardware/software being used in the system, including the camera settings. As for the computer, with any system that's doing all the stuff the scanstation is doing, I don't want to be the one debugging some obscure timing issue related to CPU clock cycles, or RAM that's not fast enough, or a GPU that's just not powerful enough, or driver or firmware versions. When you buy a professional system, you expect a turnkey setup that works out of the box, not at all what you've described with the HDS. I've talked to quite a few people at Lasergraphics about building our own system. We did it for the 5k upgrade a few years ago, but we did it to their spec, or they wouldn't support it, which is completely reasonable in my view. I'm talking down to the model of the DIMMs they used, the GPUs, everything to their spec. It saved us some money, but it's the same thing they sell.

The northlight has about 6 feet of film exposed on both sides of the camera. This means about 3 feet of film exposed on the feed side. For 35mm that's roughly 4 minutes until it gets to the camera, and another 4 to the takeup, so within your estimation. And yet, on all the films we scanned on that, dust was never an issue, and we didn't have the optional laminar flow hood (which would basically have driven dust towards the machine as it wasn't a completely enclosed system. I'm sorry, but this just isn't the issue you're making it out to be unless the environment is very dusty. On the ScanStation (which runs at just a couple frames per second when you're capturing DPX at max resolution with HDR), the Northlight, and on countless films we scanned at a local facility with a Shadow (which is an enclosed system) in the years before we got our own scanner, we have yet to come across excessive dust picked up on the scanner.

There is significantly more than realtime stabilization that makes it a far superior machine. The HDS+ is simply not in the same class as the scanstation/archivist machines. But the fact that you need to do stabilization afterwards means you've got a lot of extra work for yourself and that adds up. We will often scan 8000-10,000 feet of film in a day, and at the end of the day we're copying those files to the customer's drive and getting it ready to ship. If we had to do stabilization, we'd be tying up a couple Resolve or Phoenix stations to do that. (And resolve's stabilization isn't that reliable. We have had film that was given to us from another scanner, and we had to break it up and do the stabilization scene by scene because resolve would freak out at the scene breaks, or when the film went completely black or white. ) It's been a while since I used Diamant but when I did it was really pretty slow. How does it handle scene breaks when stabilizing? Do you need to run a scene break detection pass first? How long does that take? The software Lasergraphics wrote for all of their scanners (it's shared with the Director on down to the Archivist), is incredibly stable and reliable. It is updated frequently, and as I said above, if you have an issue they not only address it quickly, they often send you a build of the software within days - sometimes hours. Most companies you'd have to wait until their next quarterly release for the fix. I have not personally done a side-by-side comparison with the HDS+, so I can't speak to the picture quality, but I'm willing to be the ScanStation/Archivist produce a much better image. 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. The support from Lasergraphics is excellent. It costs money, yes. But this has been addressed above. The support costs are in keeping with industry standard rates. The fact that you can get software fixes within 24-48 hours is remarkable, and can't really be stressed enough. Try to request that with just about any other manufacturer of high end gear, they'll probably laugh at you.

One does not need a cleanroom (though you need a clean room) to prevent dust on the film. Open air scanners are only susceptible to dust in dusty environments. In a normal office setting that's kept clean, the film will be clean. We have not seen dust as an issue on our ScanStation or Northlight scanners. If you're seeing dust issues you should look into adding some humidifiers to your workspace to help prevent it.

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.

Sorry - I misread your comment as "why would people tell you". In any case, my point stands. The information came from Arri and is clearly now out of date. But they'r still more expensive than Lasergraphics on support.

You're not stating facts. You're implying there's a fundamental issue with the machine without backing that up. I'm in touch with quite a few Lasergraphics owners on a regular basis and have not heard of something that fits your vague description. Please don't say there is a definitive problem, then when asked to elaborate tell me to ask around. What is the precise issue that's being seen? You haven't explained it. Not "People" -- Arri. The last time I talked to them the support contract was a bit under $50k. Regardless, it's still more expensive than Lasergraphics even at today's cost. I believe that was at NAB in 2019 though it may have been 2018. I asked them, they told me directly. But for what it's worth, the pricing you're showing is on par or more expensive than what Lasergraphics charges, though they structure what you get differently. €7700 is more than we pay Lasergraphics for a similar level of support as the lowest price Arri contract, I can tell you that. I don't know who Gencom is - a VAR? Galileo Digital is the worldwide sales agent for Lasergraphics, but the support contracts are sold direct through Lasergraphics, even though it's Galileo who gives you the pricing. When we buy upgrades or new product, we pay Galileo. When we renew our support contract, we pay Lasergraphics directly. Maybe Galileo subcontracts to some regions, in which case the markup is coming from that subcontractor? I have no idea.

The stand and tabletop/integrated lightbox are niceties. The Personal and the Archivist fit on a stable, sturdy table. You bring your own stand, in order to save on costs - both shipping and manufacturing. The tabletop/lightbox is another thing you don't really need. None of the other high end scanners have them. I like it because it gives you a place to splice film that breaks while scanning (bad splices or whatever), but it's not strictly necessary. The rail-based camera and lens system are there to facilitate scanning multiple gauges while maximizing the sensor in the camera. Without them, smaller gauges are a crop of the largest gauge. This is how most scanners worked up until the ScanStation. This is also a complex and expensive bit of kit so removing it and simplifying the machine brings its cost down quite a bit. I never said a good manual isn't necessary. In fact I said quite the opposite. The system is proprietary, and it's modular. If something in the camera system breaks, they send you a new one, and you replace it in the field. They give you detailed step-by-step instructions. I have personally performed half a dozen upgrades on our system and have the documentation from Lasergraphics to show how to do each one. Similarly, we have had one hardware failure in the 8 years of owning the machine, and when that happened, we were given step by step instructions for how to remove the module and re-install the new one when it arrived. There are not user serviceable parts inside. The circuit boards are proprietary, as is the firmware that runs on them. Even if you knew what to do, you couldn't go buy a part from some supplier and just replace it yourself (including the camera, as there is Lasergraphics-specific firmware on them to tune the camera to their specifications). Maybe the stepper/servos, and some mechanical bits you could get. Everything else you're going to have to get from Lasergraphics, and you're going to get instructions on how to install those things when you do. This is no different than what you'd experience with Arri (who, by the way, charges $50k/ year for ongoing support on their scanners), or DigitalVision, or DFT or any of the other scanner manufacturers.

Still frame. You focus as part of the setup routine for a scan. The lens stage is moved when focusing, like in an enlarger for still images. It couldn't possibly happen while the film is in motion.

Any professional software or hardware involves ongoing annual support contracts. We pay for support for our Restoration software, for our Scanner, for our SAN software, for the programming environment I use for in-house apps. There are annual support contracts (or software subscriptions, these days) for most professional applications. This is the way. Yes, Resolve support is free. But again, you get what you pay for. We've had so many issues with Blackmagic hardware and software over the years that they simply gave up on I can't even count. I certainly can't say the same for any of the other very expensive software we've purchased for which we keep up annual support contracts. If we need help we get it, and typically very quickly. Lasergraphics, DigitalVision, Arri, none of them are there to provide free product to anyone who asks for it. They wouldn't be here if they did that. There are a bazillion ongoing costs in running a business. We're a relatively small company and we don't do free scanning for people, even though we're asked all the time. A company that has to maintain a development and support team, offices, manufacturing, shipping and receiving departments, and much more, has to charge for ongoing service. We're not talking about a product with hundreds of thousands of users, we're talking about a product with hundreds of users. There's a big difference. With scale you get things like online communities that self-support, taking some of that load off. One cannot compare a company making expensive, niche hardware with one making commodity software and expect the same thing from them.

Rule #1 of the internet. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The scanner uses a statistical analysis method for focusing. It samples the image at a variety of camera positions (we're talking tiny variations in distance to the film). The position with the sharpest edges wins. It works like a charm. There's no need to do anything other than auto-focus with the Lasergraphics scanners.

First I've heard of this. Please elaborate on what the problem is, and why it requires an on-site visit. It was never marketed as an upgradeable machine, beyond trade-in for a full scanstation, which was designed to be modular from the beginning. This is from the original press release when they announced the machine: "As their scanning needs increase, customers can trade-in their Personal for a Lasergraphics ScanStation or Director film scanner." So let me get this straight: Would you buy a car without electric windows, or power steering, or nice leather seats, and then when you decide you want those things you complain you can't bring it to the dealer had have it upgraded? Best of luck with that. They're going to offer you a few bucks on a trade-in for a new car. This was never marketed as an upgradeable system. It was relatively inexpensive because they removed a bunch of features (metal platters, the huge steel stand, the Corian table with integrated lightboxes, the complex rail-based camera/lens system, etc), with an option to trade it in for a full ScanStation. I think it was pretty clear from the get go that this was the way they were selling these, and all your pearl clutching about it not being upgradeable makes no sense to me. The Archivist is marketed towards Archives. Archives have a high turnover and their operators may be trained in general archive duties and not film specifically. It should have a user manual. There needs to be some base level understanding of what film is and how you focus an image on it, before you start scanning. No self-respecting archive should allow someone who is that unfamiliar with film to be handling their collection. It's not Lasergraphics' job to teach you how to do that. It's something you should know, or be taught by someone who does. Could it be in a manual? Yes. But I'd rather Lasergraphics (which has a fairly small engineering team) spend their time on improvements and bug fixes. What would I like in a manual? A comprehensive explanation of what each feature does and to some degree, what's happening under the hood. I want the nuts and bolts explanations so I can use my knowledge of how this stuff works to maximize the quality of our scans. Right now it's more of the "To open a File go to File/Open" style manual, which is basically useless.

I hesitate to dive into this, but as usual the info Dan is providing is partial and not completely accurate. We have been a customer since the ScanStation was released in 2013. In fact, we have the first commercially shipped ScanStation, so we know the thing inside and out. 1) Lasergraphics support has been superlative. Yes, you have to pay for a support contract. Yes, it's expensive. But you also get fixes to bugs you find, sometimes the same or next day. A major component of any scanning system is the software, and anyone who has worked in the software industry knows there will be bugs. It's unavoidable. With most software companies, you have to wait until the next version for a fix to become available, but Lasergraphics will give you an interim version to get you around the issue you're having. This is practically unheard of in the software world. 2) The cost of the scanner has risen. But I mean, what hasn't in the past 8 years? Also, the "original" scanner was a very different beast than the current model so you can't compare them. Our original ScanStation was 2k, no HDR, and a bunch of other features weren't added yet. The newest versions have a 6.5k camera, HDR, and a host of other features (some of which came from our interactions with their support team, and those of other users). 3) The documentation is abysmal, yes. There is a lot of room for improvement here. This language is common. Our Northlight 1 uses the same terminology. So did our old DigitalVision DVNR. Is it the most intuitive? No, but it's fairly standard. And you know what? if you don't know what a setting does, just ask. If I saw a setting that said "filter/aperture correction" and didn't know what that meant, I'd surely ask what it does and how it works. Learning is a two-way street. If this is not intuitive to someone working in film scanning, then that person should be looking for another line of work. This is how you focus film in projection, or in optical printing, and not knowing something that basic shows a lack of understanding of the medium that is well beyond the scope of the documentation. This is not a machine you buy at Walmart, it's specialty hardware that requires some understanding of the formats you're dealing with. I appreciate a good manual, believe me. I helped to write the original manual for the Media 100, which did what you're suggesting (down to explaining how to read the internal WFM/Vectorscope). But that was designed from the beginning to be a tool for the masses, this is not. There needs to be some expectation that you know what you're doing before you start doing it. If you don't, you're doing a disservice to your customers. If you're an archive then an archivist who has an understanding of film should be the one trained on it, not just someone who happened to be walking down the hall the day it was being installed. The training, by the way, is only on Zoom because of the pandemic. They typically travel to the location, set up the machine for you and teach you in person how to use it. And you have basically unlimited contact with Lasergraphics tech support and the sales agent, if you have questions. They have gone to bat for us countless times when we had feature requests and we're extremely satisfied with most aspects of their customer service. If there are issues with the machine, they can log into it remotely and recalibrate and tweak all kinds of stuff. Are there things about their support that could use improvement? Sure. But that's the case with any company. Try getting support out of blackmagic, once they hit a wall and can't figure out your problem. The bottom line here is that you get what you pay for.

I agree with Andrew. Leave this for what it is, which is a pretty good machine. If you're interested in selling it, let me know. Or trading - I've got actual film scanners if you want to fiddle around with making your own. What sound heads does this have? I wouldn't mod this one, to be honest. it's probably more hassle than it's worth, and it would be a shame to damage this machine if it's in working order. There's a lot more involved than you may think to building your own, so if you're going to do it, start with an actual film transport and work from there. It'll be a lot easier (he said from ongoing, painful experience)

That's going to depend on the lab and how they do it, and also your location. I would just shop it around. If you don't need to be present in the room you'll save a lot of money doing an unsupervised grade, because clients in the room slow everything down. The presence of a client in the color room makes the job of the colorist a lot harder (it's not just about color at that point, it's about customer service, providing coffee, chatting, trying 10 different variations, etc). Color correction costs have really come *way* down since DaVinci Resolve went from a couple hundred grand to basically free. There are a lot of very good colorists out there who work freelance and have high quality monitoring without the overhead of a fancy studio, so you just have to look around.

A day rate of $3500 is not normal in 2021, outside of A-list post houses. A short shouldn't cost you more than $1-$2k for color correction and file export, unless there are issues that require a lot of work. We do feature films all the time for under $5k, but we only work with film-originated material that we scan in house, so we can control the whole process. A 20 minute film does not take many days to grade unless you start getting really fussy, or you're doing a lot of tracking/matting/relighting in post.