Dan Baxter

That will put your company at the greatest risk for ROI as you could easily expect to have it for a couple of years before you can find a buyer. You could auction it off with the likelihood of making a loss. Another option may be to lease it to a company that wants to put it into use, then you could draw up a 12-month or 24-month lease that will easily cover the costs to set it back up, and at the end of the lease period transfer ownership to the new company for an agreed (nominal) price. That would seem a lower-risk option than out laying nearly $30K to set it up in the hopes of finding a buyer. You may be able to find a small company perhaps an archive or something for which this would be an attractive option.

Thanks Robert, some great points. Only one I disagree with is the options it has (point 2) I think Monte has clarified that pretty well actually. That's the 4K speed, 2K is listed as 6.8fps which is more than acceptable in speed even today. You can read the specs here, but don't forget there's a good dose of LG marketing as well as features listed which cost extra.

Hey Monte, most of the guys here I think are well-meaning, and no one can accuse you of doing anything misleading as you've listed machine quite accurately from what I can tell (2010 model with the specific options that it comes with). There's probably someone here with experience with Directors from this time who could be a lot more help than me, I think that unlike a lot of other equipment like projectors, film cleaners, and some of the medical equipment you're more used to the technology with scanning has advanced at a very rapid pace. Most of the companies with the budget for a 6-figure scanning system would probably want something a lot more modern, but upgrading it should be possible so someone may be interested in it for a 5-figure sum. I'm no expert, but I would think that it's of limited use how it is - at 1 frame per second it would take 8 hours to scan a 20 minute reel (the listed 4K scanning speed) so more likely you could only really use it for 2K scanning in 2022 until you got an upgrade package for it, but with the global chip shortage expect that to take months. I think the warranty @ $17K/year includes parts, service, and support. As Robert says that kind of fee is fairly standard for any type of professional/workshop equipment, but the difference being that a CNC machine or medical equipment will probably have a much longer useful life before becoming obsolete.

Filmfabriek is a good reputable company. I'm aware of that. I also don't think there's too much point in chasing the full quality of a more expensive scanner as most of the users won't really be able to tell the difference anyway and it'll just increase the price until you may as well just buy a Filmfabriek HDS+ which comes with support etc (once you make mods to the Retroscan I don't think Moviestuff will give you any support).

They aren't, as Brad says rewashing is really a lab service. What the serious restoration companies can offer if the client doesn't want to put their film through the rewash process and they have enough of a budget is spend an arcane amount of time scraping off the embedded dirt under a microscope, most likely with a scan of the dirt to help them find it. That's how I imagine it works, and I imagine it costs an absolute fortune. I have no idea how common that would be these days as no one really makes new prints for cinema now so fixing the negative may not be necessary if the goal is to make a restoration to DCP and 4K Bluray, the next option would be to scan a damage matte to find all the dirt but that's not available on a CFA/Bayer scanner, and the final option is to clean it up in post. As Robert said earlier it's the old adage: "cheap, fast, quality - pick two."

Hey Brad yes re-washing is certainly lab only. If you get it wrong the film can be ruined. To back-up what Brad is talking about, there are a couple of examples of private people doing DIY services that are likely harming film like this. It appears there that they're painting the film with something which is really no greater benefit compared to just putting a filter in front of the projector: Notice the red splodges which is dirt that's now been painted onto the film. If in any doubt with a service like that someone should speak to a film lab and ask why they don't offer the same service, because if something appears to be "too good to be true" it usually is.

I'd be surprised if you can do it in-line with a single-pass so let us know how you go on that. We just cleaned one of our prints here and it took multiple passes in an ultrasonic machine, and it would take even more passes in a Film-O-Clean or a Kelmar. One of my friends cleaned a print before projecting it using a Kelmar and because they wanted to get it as clean as possible they ran it through like 9 times or something crazy like that!! If you're making modifications to your film path don't forget to test it first with junk film for scratching etc. That's because you don't have a choice of solvent - they were designed for Trike and then most that were still in use have been converted to use Perc. Some companies (and even individuals) convert them to use HFE solvents or whatever else, but it doesn't seem to be a straightforward process to convert them and I'll bet that it's expensive as well. One of my friends in restoration uses Spectra if they need to clean film in LA. Yes it doesn't get out the embedded dirt you need rewashing for that.

If they're offered as a kit they'd be a markup or a charge for the service to upgrade the base machine. It won't necessarily be comparable to the HDS+, as for one thing you would need to use SpinView to capture, and for another this isn't even with getting the light flashing for each exposure which is another thing you should do. It would simply make the Moviestuff a bit more usable. Just changing the light though and adding gates will make a big improvement, and you could select a less expensive camera to save cost if you don't need full 4K (like this one). I would say that choice would depend on your intended use - the 2.5K camera would be perfect for doing home movie transfers with a workflow that doesn't need to involve full 4K as an example. That may also be a perfectly suitable choice for the OP (Mr Teoli) as well for his archival film, the files are smaller lower bitrate etc. Hobbyists shooting film may want a higher resolution camera, and for professional use or restoration you'd definitely want higher resolution as well. So I'd say you'd be looking at around $14K all up to make it decent for dual-format and a bit more than that with 4K or 5K. If you're going to add P/T rollers as well your budget needs to increase. I don't want anyone here thinking it will make it on-par with the HDS+ though, with enough DIY work that may be achievable but not for $16K and you'd better be someone who wants to tinker with their machine voiding your warranty if necessary.

Yeah from what we've heard people's experiences with these has been mixed. With that said they're cheap (they're being sold for about $2K each from that company) and they appear to be in working condition. I'll let you know how it goes, there are at least three of them currently being set up at separate locations by different people, and I think there's a couple of other people interested in them too.

There's a bit more to it than just the camera. As Robert noted the 4K Flir Blackfly S camera in your HDS+ retails at $3K. Add to that your choice of lens, the Retroscan I uploaded the sample from has this one fitted with the 4K Blackfly S. But just changing the camera module is kind of a meaningless expensive waste of time because you definitely need to change the light for something better. Changing the light will improve the quality more than changing the camera. So budget about $200 to build a simple white light, the best white lights for the money are the YUJILED High CRIs, but of course all the proper machines have true RGB lights. They badly need gates as well, I don't know what they'll be priced at as those haven't even been produced yet beyond the prototypes - I think they have to be priced under $1K to attract the target customers, so maybe $1K each at the most. That means the total costs involved for 16/8 would be about $5-6K if going to full 4K.

Film Guard is designed for projection, you probably want to use either Isopropyl or IsoparG if you want to attach that cleaner directly to a scanner. As you say though you can disconnect it anytime and put it between rewinds as well, which you will need to do anyway if the film requires multiple passes. A couple of people are setting up some of these SanLabs cleaners soon, they use IsoparG.

Sorry let me clarrify, I certainly didn't mean to say you can't use it for restoration. I just see it as a different design where Filmfabriek has decided that "this is good enough for our price-point" if you understand what I mean. Instead of chasing perfection with a system that would cost a fortune, they've gone with a simpler and cheaper one. I don't mean that in a pejorative way - there are companies that offer affordable home movie transfers off those machines and off ScanStations as well, so these days people don't have to go with the lower-quality offered by the companies using Tobins or Retroscans.

Oh right, you're correct on that. So yes I mean the "traditional" wetgate systems for scanning on Arris or DFTs etc as opposed to ultrasonic cleaning or wetgate printing (and there is a much much longer history of wetgate printing). My point was basically that the manufacturers were not designing those systems for cheap home movie transfers, they were for restoration whereas it seems that Filmfabriek's system is designed more for home movies and not restoration. The "wetgate" effect is not equal compared to a system that uses Perc.

I feel you can add "versatility" to that adage: Good/Cheap/Fast/Versatile. That's what you're compromising on. The example I showed is with a white light as mentioned, a true RGB light will improve the results and will also give greater versatility to recover faded film. You're also compromising on the speed of the workflow with the example I uploaded (4K on a Retroscan) as you have to capture to camera raw then debayer and then convert that to Prores. That example also hasn't been stabilised in post. A Lasergraphics will go straight to Prores and stabilise the film in the scan.

I meant the scanners with wetgate like the Director.

Yes I do. And the guy I know will be able to offer an upgrade service for them as well if someone want to pay to have it done. But I think the intention is to document the changes properly so others can DIY if they want to (except the gates obviously). Here is a 35mm sample: https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20220109HDyQjB0f That's scanned with a 4K camera, a high cri LED light and a prototype gate to hold the film flat.

I think the Neil one is sold here, and you can buy Kelmars as well and convert those to small format.

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).

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.

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).

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. 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.

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. 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 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. 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.

It was an option on the SSP as well. "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. Well it did last year when it was launched: 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. I disagree. Why does the Archivist have 35mm rollers on it?

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. Please stop misinforming people. The Chrome Rollers are an option: 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. More likely they're designed to be incompatible with the more expensive scanner.

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.