Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

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

That is interesting. I think Tyler said his FF didn't work out of the box and he had trouble with it. How was yours getting it to operate? Did you get any help from the instructions? I do the same thing as you, except it is all open content. No $$ for me. And Getty won't have anything to do with me and the I.A. can hardly stand me! If all a person seeks is $$, they will pass up on things that do not produce $$. Or they will not do things if it affects their $$. I have no such issues. BUT...it takes money to deal with the money sucking cine' film! My VHS Archive is much more affordable. But I prefer cine' film. Yes, Prelinger is the King! He got started early and had a good bankroll. Lobster in France is another fantastic Archive. Here is Prelinger's wife... Interview of archivist Megan Prelinger RWM : D.D. Teoli Jr. as archivist : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Kinetta never got anywhere, did they? Aren't they defunct? And $60k is way too high for that machine me thinks. http://www.kinetta.com/images/clipboard.jpg?crc=3888319758 Perry said the Retroscan is a toy. That Kinetta looks like a kid's toy. It may scan great, but it still looks like a toy. "But I mostly use the FF because it's a few feet from my bedroom door...' Jeeesus, that is what I need. A cine' scanner in my bedroom! You live in cine' scanning paradise.

That is not true. As an open content Archive, I have no business plan other than I buy lotto tickets all the time. But since Lasergraphics plans to raise the prices, I will have to double my lotto ticket purchases! I write Lasergraphics all the time for sponsorship for my film Archive...never got one reply. They must love money over the love of film. OK, they are a biz and need profit, but still if you love something it overrides profit.

What are they scanning? You had said Cintel is no good for archival 16mm. Are they doing indie dailies or their own stuff? If Cintel made a 16mm unit with a good 4K sensor and a warped film gate that read optical sound for $20K...then they would have something. But, you know the deal with 'if'...if grandma had balls, she would be grandpa!

If they don't use them, tell them to loan me one for 2 years and I'll add their name to all my productions. May not do them any good, but I get millions of eyeballs over the year viewing with my stuff. If it is just sitting, might as well put it to use. As I've said many a time. The film acquisition (archival) is not the issue. It can be acquired very cheap, somewhat cheap or not too expensive most of the time. The scanning $$ is the issue, not the film acquisition.

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

Thanks for the rundown Tyler. I'm hoping to get back to some of these scanner threads I started so I can digest what has unfolded. Just no time. I've got about 18 PDF's to download, so am trying to read and answer a few posts today as I download the PDF's. That is how I gotta work, sad, but that is it. Never thought about a clean room. But makes sense. Exactly what do you do to clean each frame? What sort of wipes and cleaner? Yes, it sounds terrible if you have to clean each frame. I can hardly stand to clean the roll...as fast as I can run it through the rewinds. I hate it. All I want is the scan, not the rest of the hassle. Slow, methodical cleaning is not good if you got ADD. The ADD'er does not like repetitive, slow work. Now, I don't mind scanning that much, it is kinda fascinating, especially if you have not previewed the film in the editor. You see it all unfold, which can be very fascinating if you got a 'pig in a poke' film and have no idea what you got. I always run the film through the rewinds to see the condition of the film before scanning. But I don't run through the editor much anymore. Again...time problems. I may loupe the film here or there, but content is 98% blind many times. It is mainly the cleaning I don't like, as slow drying cleaner takes many passes to dry up. If I don't have the time, I can wipe it pretty clean and let it sit not perfectly dry for a few hours to evaporate before scanning. But I prefer to dry it properly. I wish I had one of the hypersonic film cleaners. Slow drying cleaner does a better job that fast-drying cleaner (Edwal) at getting the dirt off, but slow drying cleaner is a pain to actually get dry in a hurry. This thread was started Tyler, to get a better idea of where the scanning biz is headed for those that may want to buy a new or used scanner in the future. It is an inquiry into the questions of... Will the use of film keep dwindling and as well as the demand for archival scans? Are major companies going to stop making scanners / go out of biz? Will they make cheaper scanners to broaden their market of ever decreasing or stagnant customers? Are the people that thought they can charge $300 to scan a small roll of film going to be short on biz and start selling their scanners? Things like that.

Looks good Perry...but I don't know what the hell to do with it. Does it read optical sound? Does it have the software? Does it come with instructions or is it like the Lasergraphics and you are on your own? Would it be good for an archivist and warped film? Don't know?? Can you buy parts for it? These types of things are only good for those in the know. I wish I knew more about it. You take good care of your equipment Perry, looks very clean.

Can't say about creative use. But many of my still camera lenses suffer from loose focus rings and some have loose aperture rings. I use gaffers tape to fix focus for zone focus shots. Such as working in the dark with IR flash in crowds. The adjustments can change easily from bumps or rubbing. For IR flash I don't change focus much, so it works fine. Same with aperture, I use one aperture generally and change the flash power. So, I can work fine with fixed focus and fixed aperture. You can tape things down for any use, but it may not work well for other types of shooting that need constant adjustments.

Can't find the film in question. Spent half an hour looking, but it got buried back in the hoard. BUT...you are right about the 8mm. I took out an old 8mm reel and matched it up to 16mm. Same exact sprocket size as 16mm and same ratio as the missing film. As I was looking for the lost film, I noticed it was fairly common to use old, undeveloped 16mm film as leader. Never thought about it much before. But this was the first time in over a thousand reels I saw someone using uncut 8mm film as 16mm leader. Thanks for the help!

Click to view larger size This was a 1991 public service announcement in P.O.N.Y X-Press magazine. A publication put out by Prostitutes of New York. (An informal guild of sex workers.) I was scanning the mag for my Curator-at-Large in England. He supplies me with material he finds in the USA he wants scanned and I scan for him. And it is also shared with my Archive, so, we both benefit. Normally I don't read much of the text I'm scanning; I just look at some of the photos. And even then, not much time for the photos. I scan many tens of thousands of pages a year, so can't look at everything. And I'm not much of a reader anyway, I like photos. Point of all this is...I'm lucky I found this interesting tidbit because I usually don't read the mags.

Ok, will work on getting a photo. The 8mm could be a possibility, but don't know. The sprocket holes look to be the same size as regular 16mm. It will take some time to get it. I found it while organizing my 16mm film and don't remember which can it was from. Hopefully in a few days.

Someone used a piece of raw, undeveloped 16mm film stock as leader on a reel of a 16mm silent film. The piece of film in question is double sprocket. (Each side has sprockets.) And it has 3 sprockets for every 2 standard 16mm sprockets. In other words, where the standard 16mm film has no sprocket, this film has a sprocket, and all sprockets on this film are evenly spaced. What do they use this type of 16mm film for?

Kodak Cine' Film Product Catalog 2006 D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Kodak Motion Picture Film Price Catalog 3.9.09 D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Kodak Essential Reference Guide For Filmmakers D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : D. D. Teoli Jr. A. C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

https://16mmfilmtalk.com/download/file.php?id=12056 https://16mmfilmtalk.com/download/file.php?id=12057 A little piece of Paul Ivester's collection. Racked, barcoded and organized! March is my A,B,C, month. All films get put in A,B,C, order and get written in a logbook. That is my goal! (Fingers crossed.) If I can do that, then the next step may be to write it down in a computer ledger that is searchable for key words. But that is not that big a deal to me. I'd would just like to know what title I have for now.

Never heard of him, but he sounds important. If you got a blog, do a piece on him. If you don't got a blog, do it here.

OP...a sucky scanner does not give you sharp grain.

They are! Make a video on their use when you get time.

OP...do lighting tests. Lots of tests. And test your BW conversion as well. I take it you are doing digital. If film, color film does not have the grain structure that BW film has when it is desaturated. If the BW conversion looks poor, try giving it an almost imperceptible warm cast. Usually 1%- 2% saturation is enough with the proper warm color temperature. Or maybe you like a cold look with the same % for the blue end of the color temp. Whatever, just test all options. Good luck!

...forgot to mention. I can flatbed scan up to 11x17 inches and have a vacuum easel that can handle up to about 22" x 26" on the copy stand. So size is generally not an issue.

Found this old post... GD...I would have loved to scan that stuff before it was trashed. Did you get time to scan it Dave? If so, can you send me the scans and I will upload to the I.A....or you can upload. (As long as the scans are decent res.) I was just going to write a post on this very topic... Scan your Catalogs! Paper catalogs are fast disappearing. Instruction manuals too! If you got the room, save the paper material and if not...SCAN! I'd be glad to scan catalogs for free for anyone as long as they interest my Archive and the material is shared with me. 600 dpi - 800 dpi scans, it just depends on the material. You just pay shipping both ways if you want the material returned. And if it is bulky catalogs, the binding gets cut off to run through the sheet fed scanner. write direct to discuss: w1000w@aol.com Dan

DDTJRAC What is the black hinged square on the top left of photo used for? Is it for posting shooting notes for the cameraman? Is it a sunscreen for the cameraman's eyes?

Very interesting OP! Never thought about it. No doubt Freestyle would have sold it back in the 70's. They specialized in repackaged films back then. I mean maybe they wouldn't have, but they could have. They sold anything for $$. None of the sample enlargements at the site impressed me OP. Digital is far sharper. Why don't you get some of that film OP and do a proper field rundown on it? I got something like that recently OP. Tru-Vue films. Not microfilm, but reminds me of it, it is so tightly wound. eBay Photo: Fair Use My Tru-Vue films are a collection of various burlesque theaters / performers. Very rare stuff. Now just have to flatten it out to scan!