Dan Baxter

I don't know why they bother locking it to the computer, when it's locked to the scanner anyway. You cannot plug your host computer into a different LG and expect it to work - it won't, they're all individually licenced and locked to their own host software/computer. This is to prevent people from getting free upgrades to the host software without paying for the monthly support contract (everyone gets their own individual version of the host software I might add - you don't download it from a central repository and enter a licence key no no no it's compiled for each separate LG scanner). But yes it's normal that scanners have host computers that are locked. The problem is when you have some Windows XP computer or whatever and you cannot upgrade it because the company now only provides very limited support or it doesn't exist anymore, and the software is copy-protected and cannot be transferred to a newer computer. That said, they run on Windows 10 so it's not a problem at the present, and remember that DCS and Arri both run their scanner software on Linux not Windows, so the fact it runs on Windows instead of Linux is one of the many selling points for them.

Yeah, that's what others have said about them too. The MkII didn't have that issue, but it has so many other issues. None of them had 4K. The "4K" models have a 2K camera (or 2.5K??) The awful quality light is the bigger issue in terms of quality. A high CRI light makes a huge difference even with the original camera. The lights in your FF and LG scanners are similar - RGB (or RGB+white) fully-spectrum LED, probably the LG one is brighter, and then FF has a diffusion blob and LG has a diffusion cube. MS could have just used a high CRI white light with proper diffusion, that's all it needed, but Roger never bothered with using a decent light, unfortunately. Oh right! Well good for you!! That's the other part of the story re- the MovieStuff collapse, which is that people who are capable will replace them after a year, or after a few years, with a real scanner. As you say they're a "starter scanner" for many.

I didn't mock you. 😛 The Kelmars and the Film-O-Clean are designed to be attached to projectors, but people have attached them in-line to scanners as well. And plenty if people use them how you do - on their own between rewinds. They're designed for use with Media Pads and Film-Guard, but Film-Guard will wear out PTR and Capstan rollers. The Archivist doesn't come with PTRs unless you ask LaserGraphics for them, but it would not be hard to add your own PTR rollers anyway.

Did you replace a Retroscan with an Archivist? If so, you're definately not the only one!

Exactly. Roger has ripped off a heap of people, and to most of them $10,000 is a lot of money. Unfortunately, most of the people that were "dissatisfied customers" didn't want to put their names out publicly, which led to the incorrect perception that everyone was happy. Plenty of customers have said in private though they don't like the way he does business but that they need to be able to still have product support from him. In Roger's ego-driven Facebook post, he talks as if his compeditors are the "big boy scanners", to use your term. No mention of Filmfabriek, DCS, Blackmagic or Kinetta! Or the fact that the big boy machines are very different now than 20 years ago. They cost way less, they're much simpler, more mechanically reliable, more capable in what they can do, etc. Most film now is over 40 years old, so now they have to be able to do archival film, whreas in the 1990's digital scanning was just for special effects. The other perception that existed was that they were getting a bargain, because a LaserGraphics ScanStation fully-loaded is $200,000+. Or because FF charge a lot more for the Muller or the Pictor ranges. Yet anyone actually using them to do their best work for paying customers is spending ages working on the scans in post to try and fix them up for their customers. The same is actually true for some of the less capable big boy scanners including the GoldenEye. Roger takes a cut, and provides a 90 day warranty. You can read the page here, it's still on his website. LOL. He was on the Kinograph forums, but ran away to his Facebook group when criticised.

Okay so I don't have to keep emailing MS customers I'm putting this here. "I did my research on these before purchasing and couldn't find any criticism of MovieStuff." One of the recurring issues was that existing MS customers were too afraid to publicly speak out against Roger for fear of him withdrawing support or refusing to sell them parts etc. Better research would involve talking to multiple MS customers/RetroScan users first. "These were definitely the go-to 'prosumer' models that were better than the old telecines yet still not the cost of a house like the ScanStation." Roger Evans on his Facebook group would refuse to ever acknowledge his real competitors, and whenever he spoke about competitors it was always the "$250,000 ScanStation". There have always been competitors for the hobbyist market/low-end archiving market, but MovieStuff did their best not to let their customers or potential customers know who their actual competitors were. The above is simply an example of someone quoting Roger's sales pitch without realising that what they're saying isn't accurate. The Retroscan Universal MkII made no sense to me. It was at an unrealistic price-point that doomed it to market failure. With enough work, and expense, you can modify it to get it to work the way that a $10,000 scanner should work to begin with - or you could just buy something that works better to begin with. The film guides actually work fine. Gates would be better, but the film guides work and is the least of the problems that the scanner has. To the point however, you've mentioned many times how collaborative and helpful FF have been with assisting with issues that you've had with your HDS+ - you don't hear people sharing the same experience with MS! It either works the way it came and people are satisfied with that, or if they're not satisfied with how their MS scanner works then they do their own modifications to it with no assistance from MS other than "encouragement" to do so. With the RUMkII it had subpar parts from the start, I have a felling the Universal MkI was better mechanically speaking.

Called it. There's some more in the low-end market including Film-Digital and Ventura Images for example and don't forget DCS in the "midrange" either.

No, the ones you've linked to are not rebuilt in any way and only one of them is described clearly as being in working condition. You can, in theory anyway, buy the RTI Group cleaners fully rebuilt and refurbished from Jonathan Banks.

Did someone finally show you how the LG scanners are priced? One of my friends that has a full ScanStation has a second DIY scanner that he built that produces very similar quality, in his case he'd do badly warped film on his second scanner as he has full warped film gates he made for it. Most people don't buy the warped film kits for the ScanStation or the Director, remember they can't do wetgate scanning anyway so it's only half the solution. 😛

It's similar to the San Labs Prista: https://www.ebay.com/itm/234334902645 Except much more compact and supports 8mm. I think those Pristas can be had for about $2,000 - they're also designed for the same chemical (Isopar-G) but they're not in working condition so you need someone who can repair them and get them running, if you need the contact details just send me a DM and I'll get them for you. The Hydras are very expensive as you might imagine.

You're not looking hard enough. https://www.grays.com/lot/0001-5052744/audio-tv-and-home-theatre/lasergraphics-scanstation-motion-picture-film-scanner Someone got a bargain there, even with all the extra fees and taxes.

Nice. A big selling point for those is the fact they're tri-format as most cleaners can't do 8mm, so they're suitable for labs that are focused on small format as well as 35mm.

You need to just buy Filmfabrieks, they fill that niche now. They have something coming this year that's cheaper for 16mm. MovieStuff does it too. You need to abandon the MovieStuff software entirely to get the most out of it, and you need to remove their light and build your own light. Even with the cameras they come with this will improve the output, and then you can capture to camera-raw and avoid the 8bit compression forced by MovieStuff's host software. The reason why LG and others lock-down those settings is because they're mostly calibration related, so end-users shouldn't need to fiddle with them. If you really want to change them you can, you can either get LG to change them, or you can get the tools that they use to change them so long as you sign an NDA. Even I don't know more than that and exactly how they work, but I know enough to know they exist because every major scanner manufacturer has tools for editing the "hidden settings" whether they let the user have them or not (usually not - and that's not a bad thing as people would just break something and need support if they had them). Perry was simply explain PTR rollers can be purchased directly from Kodak - they're a standard product that anyone can buy. Matt from Kinograph was working on making their own so that you don't have to purchase them from Kodak as well. 5:34 in the video: Why not just email Matt and bring that product to market?

The first Muller HD model was released in 2011, and MWA had a range of small format Bayer scanners as well. I wouldn't say that the they and the ScanStation, Kinetta, DSC Xena, and the Blackmagic Cintel weren't "major market" I'd say that they were market disrupters. Well 5K on RGB is far sharper than 5K on Bayer, so depending on what you want you may want to sharpen a Bayer scan in post if you want it to look more like an RGB scan.

The resolution varies, but most theatrical prints are 1.5K-2K in resolution, but a good negative might exceed 4K greatly. A good showprint though might have 4K resolution as well, all depends on the quality of the print itself. I've seen 35mm prints that look almost as good as 70mm when projected. Also it's not all about resolution, the dynamic range of print exceeds that of Bayer digital even now. Joerg, you are my new best friend! Absolutely correct!! Yep older CCD sensors had limited dynamic range, they couldn't scan print well at all (the scanners didn't even have a setting to scan print - remember you used to have to get a special low-contrast print made for telecine transfer which cost considerably more than a normal projection print and they're normally 16mm but they can be 35mm), and the Bayer versions were even more limited. YES!!! Most older scanners have aggressive artificial sharpening that cannot be disabled. Even brand new scanners today come with artificial sharpening, though thankfully it can be disabled. To put it the way a mate of mine recently did: artificial sharpening in the initial scanning stage doesn't add anything that can't be done better later. Most "film grain" is digital noise, or enhanced by it. Resolution is one thing, dynamic range is another. While the newer Sony imagers are amazing even with a Bayer filter, they can't capture the same dynamic range as true RGB and they are softer from crosstalk. That's not necessarily a "bad" thing as many older movies get scanned and come out far, far sharper than they were ever intended to look in the cinema. The filmmaking and cinematography process took into account the intended look of the film once printed to the projection prints, and scanning the original negative can bring out details that were previously obscured such as making fine wires visible or makeup effects and matte paintings are more obvious, more details in the shadows that were previous obscured, etc. Any decent restoration will use a reference print for grading anyway, but the original negative itself was not color timed and is much sharper than the final print, usually. The other thing is, the older scanning systems are still in use today. Most scanners reached end of life in terms of development many years ago, like the Northlights that were discussed in another thread. With the others like Arriscans, DCS, LaserGraphics, Filmfabriek, and DFT - they have many different models, and in some cases every single scanner itself may be unique. Yeah digital scanners, but they had telecines that were a lot faster than that! Exactly. The price has come down like anything. A decade ago the going rates on a good 4K scan was in cents per frame not cents per foot like it is now. The scanner manufacturers had to compensate for limitations in both lighting and imager tech, newer LED lighting has solved the problem of using Xenon bulbs and splitting into R/G/B for sequential scanning and so on, and the 2019 Sony-chip cameras many feel are true CCD quality without the limitations of CCD. Not only that, but because the older tech took so much more engineering and was so complicated, most of the older scanners are mechanically unreliable and it's impossible to self-service them. I know that's not the case for every scanner, but it's a big difference compared to a modern LaserGraphics that is a literal workhorse and never complains or breaks down. As you say, this has opened the door to larger markets. With your example of Jurassic Park you are right: digital scanning was once pretty much exclusively for Hollywood special effects. Then in the 00's it was for post-production and film restoration as well, in the 10's it expanded into Archive markets, and now it's accessible affordably to the general public who can scan their home movies on the same ScanStation that a film restoration was done on for not that much more money than scanning on a Tobin or a RetroScan. I think MovieStuff is on its last legs... Clive retired many years ago, so that just leaves really FilmFabriek now for that market (yes I know there are others like Ventura Images but honestly for the same price as one of those you can buy a Pictor Pro). 2015 actually they put the JAI camera in, so 9 years ago. As you say, it would have solved CCD area imager tab balance problems, but the camera itself doesn't have as good dynamic range. Blackmagic are still using the same camera they launched with in 2015 or 2016 (I think prototypes went out in 2015 and launch to retail was 2016?) Regardless of the details, it remains amazing value for what you get, but the development is glacial because they don't have the R&D budget due to selling it so cheap and not charging a support contract. They announced the 8mm gate last year and it still hasn't hit the market! Obviously the Cintel will never be for finishing scans of 8mm, but basic support would be welcomed by users as they can make quick proxy inspection scans without tying up time on their proper 8mm scanner, or just to catalogue what they have etc.

That's a very different takeaway compared to how I saw it! Moviestuff laid off most of their staff, and they have unfulfilled orders older than 12 months... It won't matter if they do, the settings mean nothing to the customer. A lot of the settings are locked-down by the scanning manufacturer as well and to change them you need a tech/developer to change the hidden settings for you. Even off functionally the same machine, you'll have different levels of quality control.

@Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Here's your massive news for 2024! https://www.moviestuff.tv/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240223104029/https://www.moviestuff.tv/

The issue was that paper was that some of the operators were inexperienced with print and the types of film they were testing. At the same time though, it did expose the truth in the sense that two different operators with different levels of experience and expertise can produce two entirely different results, even off the very same machine (or identical model machines).

Jeez that is a shame. Yes if it's working condition and you can see it working. A Support Contract with Filmlight would not make any sense in 2024, a replacement gate will cost you high six figure. So if you were buying one today, you'd have to expect you're not going to repair it if it breaks down. The settings on an LG set in the factory can be changed, but they don't let just any user fiddle with them.

$125K WAS the price, in 2021 (not 2024) and with no extra frills like hardware sound readers: For TWO gates, not three. So whether you pick 35/16 or 16/8 that was the price, again I stress: three years ago. The post-pandemic price has gone up, but not to $197K - that's most likely a quote for a 3-gate fully-loaded ScanStation which would have all the hardware sound readers as well. Everything is an optional expense though, so you can buy your third gate later for example and the base price is lower. Soap and water. But the PTR rollers are designed for film that's already been cleaned, that was my point. On the ScanStation they can be bypassed entirely, so you can do your evaluation scans at 60fps on film that hasn't been cleaned and you're not risking causing cinch damage on the PTR rollers which can happen with abrasive dirt. Yeah, IF. You don't need to buy it fully-loaded. Although it does have a support contract/extended warranty which you have to pay if it's financed so that needs to be factored in to any budget. I think the SSP was designed to compete against the Blackmagic Cintels? Blackmagic have never changed the camera and it has worse dynamic range.

Well, assuming that LaserGraphics will sell you a 35mm Archivist as it's not an official product, it will cost around $70-80K. Blackmagic's development team is tiny. They've been selling Cintel scanners since 2015 or 2016 and their priority now, as it should be, is supporting their existing users. You've said this for years Tyler! It's not the only issue. Even if you don't care about the quality of the final scan because, as you say you have an archive client that just wants to understand the value of their assets and needs a quick cheap "evaluation scan", a LaserGraphics can do 60fps but the Cintel can only do 30fps. Time is money. Obviously with setting up the reels, etc, you won't actually get through 2x the volume of film, but you might get through 60% more film or something like that in the same amount of time. Don't forget you also have 4 PTR rollers that are supposed to be cleaned between every single reel of film on the Cintel, and you can't bypass them. There is no upgrade path either. That's a major limitation of the Blackmagic Cintels. Let's say they do upgrade the imager, you'll have to buy a brand new scanner to get it - it won't be available for older scanners, and there's no way they're going to support a zoom-lens optical module as you're suggesting. It is always going to be a fixed-camera system with the maximum resolution on 35mm only. Everyone who's main scanning biz is 16mm has been asking for that since the scanner launched, and you still cannot buy them for full-resolution 16mm with no 35mm support. LaserGraphics were selling 16mm ScanStation Personals in 2015 (drop the 35mm support for better resolution on 16mm and 8mm). HDR is another issue with Blackmagic Cintels. Nobody who does commercial scanning actually offers HDR scanning on Cintels because it's highly unreliable. It's also designed to solve a problem that is better solved by changing the camera for one with better dynamic range. If the Blackmagic Cintel moves to $50K, and that's a very big IF, it will move with all its current existing limitations. Do not get me wrong, for its price-point the scanner is incredible value and worth every cent. At $50K it will still be incredible value. But, it was designed as a cheap way to bring film to UHD streaming - commercial scanning was never its target. It is not a serious scanner in the commercial scanning market.

Blackmagic wouldn't put a competitor's camera in their scanner, and nor would they need to really as they have other cameras that are decent and have better dynamic range. Once you go above 4K pixel camera resolution you increase the hardware requirements too far of the host computer, and the Blackmagic scanners don't have a host computer - they're designed to run on MacBooks and other consumer-grade desktops. But yes I've heard from those that know their stuff that changing the camera is not straightforward and would require total reprogramming in Resolve to support it in addition to what you say about the hardware support. If they do change it for a new camera in the next model it will likely be exclusive to the Cintel 5, you won't be able to put it into existing Cintels as there's no upgrade path and it would cost Blackmagic too much to support such upgrades. It'd be good if BMD moved their price-point to $50K and included a host computer, but I don't see that happening. In any case, as we've seen, they're not going to change the camera unless their limited R&D resources allow for it, and they haven't too date. They're still working on getting the 8mm gate to market right now and probably other things that are a higher priority to them, BMD has a very large existing customer base with them now so they're probably focused more on the needs of their existing customers compared to prospective new ones who have to purchase other scanners as it is. Well CMOS has improved in quality and overtaken CCD imagers in the primary choice for film scanners, so that has been a major advancement. The 6.5K Sony Imagers you mention are 5 years old now (with the cameras that are used in the scanners not yet 5 years old), and they're the ones that most in industry would say are true CCD quality with anything CMOS before them having less dynamic range than CCD would deliver natively. I'd agree with that. They have their own limitations of course, but they are definitely the best bang-for-buck.

Support contracts pay for software upgrades and for continued development. There are multiple approaches that have taken place, some companies require that you have an active support contract to get replacement parts, others like Arri will give you a discount on replacement parts and priority service rather than require you have a contract to get them (that's my understanding anyway), FilmFabrik and Blackmagic and Moveistuff do not require a support contract and support is built into the base cost of the scanners and then provided for free (although you may have to pay for major software updates). This is also the case with older machines, so you need to know your stuff and whether the replacement parts you'll need to get will be available or not. That's why some old scanners and telecines will sell, albeit not for very much now, and others won't. The ones that will sell for $5,000 or more are the ones you can still maintain today without spending a fortune, and anything else is effectively more of a burden than it's worth and obviously much, much more limited in what actually do compared to a modern scanner. FF have a new model scanner hitting the market next year so keep an eye out for that. If you know anyone thinking about buying a RetroScan I'd suggest they should probably wait until next year and in the meantime have a chat with FF about commissioning a scanner from them. MS have really dropped the ball post-pandemic. They have been unable to source their parts, people have been paying in full up front and then waiting in some cases longer than a year for delivery of their scanner - and many will be disappointed when they get them and it breaks down after they put a couple of dozen reels through it (which is not much film).

Of course, you'll likely get motion-blur and it's lower optical resolution as you say as well. But in situations where the video quality isn't essential 60fps is fine like making some quick proxies to check condition or to check what's on it for example. It's the situation that's been the case ever since the original 2013 ScanStation as you know as you had one. A few years ago someone I talked to sent their home movies to be transferred on an original ScanStation, and they came back looking awful and they complained so the scanning company did it again, this time properly (or at least to their satisfaction). Setting the scanning speed artificially slow on a 2K ScanStation probably wasn't very intuitive to a lot of operators, whereas the higher optical resolution forces slower speeds now and especially if the HDR module is engaged. I'm not going to mention that company on a public forum, but they clearly knew how to make their scanner do better work but it seems they'd give their clients low-effort work and if they complained only then would dial-in the settings properly and re-scan. That being said looking at their prices, they were clearly priced for low-end work so the fact they'd re-scan properly at the rates they were charging was actually a very good deal. Also people bring their attitudes towards photography with them, I had a discussion just last week with a family member regarding wedding photos and someone had brought up the fact that at a particular weeding the photographer used the flash in every photo and washed-out the skin tones. "Oh you can fix that in photoshop" one person said, and I tried to explain that's not the correct way to go about it because the dynamic range is finite: you need to get the best photo you can to begin with, not put in a poor effort and expect to "fix" it in post as that's just putting lipstick on a pig. Let's just say we fundamentally disagreed about what an acceptable photography service for a wedding is! So it may be that a lot of the companies that have these scanners are used to that kind of process where they don't work on getting the raw capture itself as good as it can be because they expect to do post-work on it and expect that they will "fix" deficiencies then and they may not even understand dynamic range properly.

Right, that's fine. You should test them both at 60fps as well if you're doing a comparison and see what difference you get.