Todd Ruel

If you give customers what they want, they will return the favor with money, which will help you buy your time back to shoot whatever footage you want. It’s often a mistake to rely upon your art as a financial resource. I found that my natural desire to collect vintage automotive marketing could be turned into something that someone else would pay for (over and over). So I put my art down for awhile and put on my business hat. I’m not rich, but I’ve created a passive income stream that can eventually replace my day job. #Lifegoals!

Tyler, you were initially correct. I said that I shot at the Detroit Auto Show for 20 years. That’s footage I created. It sells for packaging peanuts most of the time. As I’ve said, it’s the vintage PD films that make real money for me. I suspect that my auto show footage will age like fine wine. When it gets to be old enough, it will start to make more money as future producers use it in their news stories, documentaries, etc. The cars that I recorded are like snapshots in time and really help to illustrate the time period that they were created. It’s like vintage footage of the Ford Mustang. You know it came out in 1965, and it’s a cultural icon. Someday, my auto show footage will be vintage, and maybe I’ll live long enough to see it make some real money! BTW, your Water film restoration is outstanding. I can’t begin to guess how many hours that took. I have one partner. He and I work on my films, and they take forever to restore. Even with automatic filters in Diamant, there’s still a ton of manual labor that we put into making these films look good. Yours look great. If I uploaded that film to Getty, I would cut it up into several shots. That long tilt down shot of the waterfall would be one clip. That POV shot inside the car on the city streets would be another. And there were others as well. See how you could turn one film into many sellable clips? That’s what I’m talking about.

Jon, the monthly revenue statements tell half of the story. But it’s a pretty interesting 50%. The customers are all names that you know: CNN, Viacom, Bloomberg, Disney, BBC, you name it. I don’t know what their specific projects are, but I do know how they’re using the material. The revenue statements will reveal whether it’s for a documentary, a web-based video, educational video, commercial film, etc. Getty charges for its clips based on the size of the audience. They also charge different rates for editorial usage vs. creative usage. For instance, Jeep might make a national commercial featuring some of my vintage Jeep footage from the 1970s. I make $500 or more for each clip included in that commercial. Yet that same commercial might only sell for a few dollars when used in a CNN news story. It depends on how the footage is used. A national commercial or Hollywood film will always make me a ton of money when compared to a news story. The production companies don’t know me personally. I’m just one of many contributors to Getty Images. But I also occasionally license footage privately to documentarians who know me. For instance, I’m currently working hard to provide a ton of b-roll to the guy who is producing a PBS documentary about the history of American Motors. He and I will work out a private licensing deal that has nothing to do with Getty. It will be much more profitable than anything I do with Getty. One more tangent: yes, I specialize in automotive footage, but the films I acquire often include lots of shots that have nothing to do with cars. For instance, in a 1938 Hudson (defunct auto brand) film, there’s a montage of people tuning radios. I uploaded this random clip to Getty, and omigod, it’s been a steady seller since the beginning. Has nothing to do with cars, but producers license it over and over and over. Sometimes it makes $3 a month and sometimes $50. But it sells month after month. These are the kinds of clips you cherish. Vintage public domain films are where the stock footage money is. Go with what customers want. Not with what you want them to want.

Whoa. I didn’t say that. I only said that Getty doesn’t provide feedback on the metadata I submit. To be clear, you must submit metadata tags along with your clips. I’m no different. I simply meant that Getty doesn’t tell me one way or the other if my tags were good, effective, or otherwise. Also, I don’t upload pictures. (I’m guessing you mean stills.). I now only upload vintage public domain film footage. There’s a ton of it. It makes much more money than me shooting my own stuff. But there are consequences. Virtually all of the film prints that I acquire and transfer require restoration. I use Diamant for restoration, Neat for grain removal, and Resolve to reassemble all the restored parts and pieces. It’s time consuming, but once a clip is up on the site, it’s sellable forever. I have clips that go years without making any money. Then suddenly, someone licenses it again. It’s been a reliable but uneven passive income stream since 2009.

Don't let that stop you. I never know if my metadata tags are useful or effective. Getty provides zero feedback about the metadata I create. However, I have a spreadsheet of all my clips and the metadata tags that I used for each clip. Once the clip has been published, I go back to the public listing of that clip and include tags that Getty has added by themselves to the clip. That helps me understand what they feel is important to customers. It's not direct feedback, but it's helpful. I've found that it's not enough to think like a content creator. You also have to think like a business person.

The secret is to stop trying to sell your own stock footage. Instead, try uploading vintage public domain films. I've been a Getty Images contributor for 20+ years. I specialize in automotive footage. I shot footage at the Detroit Auto Show for 20 years. That footage is still for sale on Getty's site, and it earns peanuts compared to vintage car films, industrials, commercials, etc. I've made $137,000 since 2009, and the vast majority of that income has derived from the vintage public domain stuff. The secret is volume. If you have a vintage 10-minute industrial, you might be able to yield 10 or 20 clips from that film. The more clips you offer, the greater the chance to earn passive income (aka royalties). It's true that you earn lower royalties than you used to. I've found that's true since Getty started offering premium memberships to high-volume customers. Many of my monthly royalty statements are filled with a few dozen 50-cent or $1.09/per clip royalties, but there's usually a shot (or two) in there that licenses for $100, $200, or $300. That little jackpot is enough of an incentive to continue uploading vintage material. Pivot away from shooting your own material. Upload vintage public domain material. Niche down to a topic that you can specialize in. Be resilient. Rinse and repeat.

I replaced the Retroscan MK1 with a Filmfabriek HDS+ and then added a Lasergraphics Archivist. The MK1 sits under a tarp unused. It was my starter scanner, but I had to move on, because there was simply too much time-consuming post-production work required to get good-looking images. The HDS+ also requires a fair amount of post-production work, but the images coming off of the scanner are so much better to start with. Also, it's not harsh on film prints. I used to snap prints in half on the MK1 when one side of the scanner or the other would lock up during capture or rewind. And finally: Roger just didn't offer a 4K option for capturing 16mm images on any of his Retroscan machines at the time. That seemed wrong or backwards to me, so I had to move on. No regrets.

Not at the moment. My budget is limited. I use a Film-O-Clean from Neal Laboratories for which I have been fairly well mocked on these forums! 😅 (It’s okay. I can take it.) I just don’t have an extra $50K to spend on a film cleaner, so I have to resort to other means. The Film-O-Clean is a little manual device that was built to clean film while attached to a projector. However, you can attach it fairly easily to a rewind bench. That’s how I use it. It cost me about $600, and I bought it directly from Roy Neal. (There’s a German site that sells it for $1,200! No thanks!)

I haven’t done a lot of scanning yet. I’ve kept the warped film gate on and simply kept the pressure plate up for film in good condition. An interesting side note is that many of the accessories have electronics in them (as Perry mentioned). When I first started using the scanner, I noticed that the scanner was not recognizing my mag readers. I was really alarmed since I had paid all that cash for those readers. However, I soon learned that the license they gave me had not validated the mag readers, because the mag readers were not physically connected to the Archivist when I entered the license information. Moral of the story: there is a license for virtually all of the features on the Archivist. When you enter that license, you need to have many of the accessories connected in order for the scanner to recognize and validate them. When you do that once, you’re good to go from then on. Big Picture moral to the story: sometimes you just never know about this stuff until you start using the gear and screwing things up. I only learn through pain and failure (and sometimes the instruction manual).

Brett Maynard of Galileo Digital, which reps this machine, told me it costs $50K.

I now own a Lasergraphics Archivist with the 16mm warped film gate, and it's a lifesaver. I have a lot of 16mm prints in various states of decay, and it keeps those films flat as a pancake going through the gate. The polished chrome film path across the film gate really gives me peace of mind that my films will experience as little friction as possible. This Archivist is built like a tank and so are the accessories. I now see why so many people recommend Lasergraphics products so highly. (It took me a while to get there.) I don't always understand the finer technical points that many of you speak about in this forum, but I've finally seen the (diffused) light, and I understand the enthusiasm for Lasergraphics.

As of today, it looks like Roger Evans' line of Moviestuff film scanners is out of business! He posted a long letter on the Moviestuff Facebook page today and then took it down. It's too bad for all of the people who have ordered his Mark II scanner. Looks like they are out of luck! So that leaves Filmfabriek, Kinetta, Cintel, and Lasergraphics in the midrange of scanners. RIP Moviestuff.

Diamant also has excellent stabilization tools. You can stabilize on the perfs. You can stabilize various items (like overlayed graphics) weaving around in the image. Their tools are excellent. I got tired pretty quickly of trying to use Resolve for stabilization. I even tried Apple Motion, because, like Resolve, it tries to stabilize some tracker points in a high contrast area like the corner of a perforation. But nothing worked until I got Diamant. I'm not knocking Phoenix or Nucoda. I simply think you have to step up to professional software like Diamant or Phoenix if you want to stabilize movie scans from machines like my Filmfabriek HDS+ or lesser hardware. Resolve requires too much effort for the time spent, IMO.

Frank, I previously written in the past about a 1920s 16mm industrial film print that is tinted for some unknown reason. You suggested that it could be tinted to prevent unauthorized duplication. Is that the case with this Houdini print? Or was it tinted on purpose to enhance its box office appeal? BTW, is this The Grim Game from 1919? ----Todd

Wish I had your engineering prowess, Tyler. I'm not much of a DIY guy. Ever consider selling your solution as a kit? Also: I'm intrigued by this forthcoming Filmfabriek scanner that you mentioned. Although I'm now committed to Lasergraphics, I'd love to see what they come out with. Dan T., their US rep is Dave Saville. He runs a company called Big Pic Media that sells Filmfabriek as well as other manufacturers. He's the one to talk to here in the States. On a similar note, when I was shopping for software film restoration packages, I asked Diamant if they had any US customers. They said their nearest one was at Indiana University, which is about 2 or 3 hours away from me. So I went and visited them. Point is, there are now US customers for the Filmfabriek, and I'm one of them. There is another out in California marketing themselves as film restorers in the Hollywood community. If you're still interested, you might consider visiting them. Or maybe Dave Saville has a demo unit in Raleigh, NC. I don't think home movie scanning companies are their niche. For instance, if you ever spend time on the Moviestuff Facebook forum, you'd see a lot of folks fretting about the cost of a Mark I or Mark II. Or they're still using some of Roger Evans' even older machines. Those folks are not even going to spring for a Filmfabriek HDS+ or a Baby Kinetta (both of which are mid-range compared to the wider scanner market). And that means they're definitely not going to write checks for Lasergraphics' products. The Archivist currently costs US $49,500 with no bells or whistles. You get one gate of your choice and a basic PC with one PCIe slot. It runs their latest software. Everything else is optional. If LG makes an even more affordable scanner, then maybe it would be worth their time to increase their outreach to smaller companies. But I don't see that happening in the short term. But hey, I could be wrong.

After starting out 6 years ago with a Moviestuff Mark I and then buying a Filmfabriek HDS+ 3 years ago, I'm now buying an Archivist. I plunked down the deposit last week with Galileo Digital. As someone who has seen the latest, greatest, up-to-date-ist price sheet, I can verify that Lasergraphics is definitely offering HDR scanning on the Archivist as a software option. And I'm getting it. I have learned the hard way that my previous scanner purchases required a lot of post-production work to make the scans acceptable. I had to buy Diamant to stabilize them, because the Mark I did not do that. I had to use AEO Light (which is a real godsend to those who have no other way to extract audio) to synchronize a usable soundtrack. And it still takes a lot of time to grade them in Resolve and dustbust them in Diamant to get films "ready for market". (In my case, that means uploading select clips to Getty Images for licensing.) The one thing I told Brett Maynard of Galileo Digital is that Lasergraphics really needs a social media presence so that they can directly address a lot of the issues that folks debate back and forth on this forum. I think they really need to do this to dispel a lot of the rumors and conjecture that I read about here and in other forums.

Frank, your input is why I come to this forum! I didn't know about diacetate or triacetate prints. (Most of my films are from the 1950s forward.) I also did not know that tinted stocks were used as a form of copy protection! Thank you for the wise words.

This is a good point, Mark. I'm sure you're right about this. When I receive the print in the mail, I'll check the edge codes to see if I can determine when the print was struck. Thanks for the input!

Film transfer experts and film print collectors: I just bought off of eBay a 1924 industrial film about General Motors constructing their proving grounds in Milford Michigan. Black and white. Silent (of course). I have not yet received the film print in the mail. From the eBay vendor's screen grabs, the print appears tinted yellow. I know that film tinting was done for some major Hollywood productions back in those days. (The silent 1925 version of Ben Hur comes to mind.) But I didn't think industrial films would be tinted. Question: has the film print simply faded to yellow? (I have very little experience with how very old movie film ages.) Or do you think it might actually be tinted?

Robino, For anyone else also reading this, HS-Art based in Austria makes Diamant (a full suite of film restoration tools) and DustBuster+, a stripped down set of film restoration tools based on Diamant. I went back into my records and discovered that they billed me $1440 back in 2015 for the USB dongle and a year's worth of service and support. If you wanted any software updates past your one year, you would have to pay them for another year's service contract. At the time, I was furious about this price. I couldn't understand why they charged outrageous sums of money like this. But gradually, I came to understand that this business model is similar to a specialized equipment manufacturer like LaserGraphics charging a service contract to maintain and improve the product that you bought. The nearest comparison I can think of (in consumer terms) is Topaz Labs. They make software that improves photography and video resolution. Once your yearly subscription has expired, you get to keep the software you already have. But unless you renew your service contract, you won't get any additional software updates. I have two DustBuster+ USB dongles. The license is on that dongle. I plug the dongle into my Mac in order to validate my license for the software. If I lose that dongle, I have to buy a new dongle for whatever their current price is. HS-Art's service contract is a different price. It's slightly lower. When I renew, they send me a new script that I have to run in Terminal on my Mac Studio to update the license on the dongle. It's almost 2023, so I imagine their DustBuster+ price is higher. If you want to contact them, try Walter Plaschzug at plaschzug@hs-art.com. Walter will give you a quote and answer any sales questions that you have. Good luck!

I have visited that archive and met their staff and saw their gear. It was a MASSIVE effort. I can't believe they did it. I have an HDS+ and a personal 600+ film archive whose clips I am uploading to Getty Images in order to make passive income. I have one friend who has my machine in his house, and he digitizes select films from my collection. He uses Resolve to grade or re-colorize them and Diamant to clean them up (to an extent). Then he sends those digitized prints to me, and I do further cleanup with Dustbuster+. It's an extraordinarily labor intensive effort. I would never undertake it just to share the content with the world. I do it to make passive income. (And the only thing that makes it worth all that effort is knowing that I can literally license these clips forever.) In between, my partner and I transfer film and digitize videos for the consumer market. And I will probably never finish digitizing all of my films. I will certainly never get all of them in an acceptably remastered condition. The HDS+ is perfectly fine for all of these endeavors (although, Perry, I would feel more comfortable sending vintage negative 16mm to you after hearing Tyler's comments about the HDS+ scratching negative prints!) All of this is to say that my experience with the HDS+ has been a positive one. Tyler, if you ever get to a place where you would sell your modified gates, please let me know. I would love to be able to deal with warped film better, and I would appreciate a price quote if you consider selling your mods to others.

Or you could just get Roger's new 4K RetroScan MK II with new camera and new light source: https://www.moviestuff.tv/moviestuff_universal_mark_ii_series.html

Just a quick follow up here: I got the license for $10,000. Here's how: I helped them make their product better. I provided a lot of feedback to them. I bought two Dustbuster+ licenses. Dustbuster+ is their starter product. Kinda like Diamant Jr. I rewrote the English copy for their Dustbuster+ web page. They immediately published it. I helped them make a better product, and they returned the favor by reducing the price of a Diamant license by 50%. Maybe you could do the same thing for them. On the topic of HS-Art software, I just bought a Mac Studio Ultra, and rendering Dustbuster+ timelines on it is blistering fast! It takes 1/3 the time it used to take on our PC workstation and about 50% less time than on my old iMac Pro. If time equal money to you, then using these film restoration tools on a Mac Studio will save you even more time/make you even more money. I can't wait to move our film restoration efforts off of the PC and onto a Mac. Speed: so much better. Maintenance: almost nonexistent.

Tyler, do you mean the actual film transfer machine doing post stabilization during the scanning process? Because I have an HDS+, and I will admit that the scans can be a little wobbly, but they are not crazy. I bought a license for the Diamant Film Restoration Suite, and I'm here to testify under oath that their film stabilization software tools are superior. Fast and simple. And the stabilize tools just work. They work the way you would expect them to. And just in case someone wants to argue that you have to spend $10K-$20K for stabilization, I'd like to add that the full suite includes all the tools you need to clean up and restore damaged films, too. There are also valuable tools for restoring videotape media as well. I have a 600+ vintage film collection. Purchasing Diamant was one of the best decisions I've made to unlock the money-making potential of that collection. What? We overscan 16mm all the time with the 4.7K imager in our HDS+. We don't need 5K at all to scan, see the perfs, and use Diamant to stabilize the scans. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you use your scanner. We also use the overscanned image to extract an audio soundtrack using AEO Light. I will be happy to implement the 5K+ upgrade, but so far the images we've produced with the existing equipment in our HDS+ have been great! I concede that you have to do a fair amount of post-production work in DaVinci Resolve to do good color correction, but you have to do that work anyway even with high-end scanners. I would love to have a ScanStation Archivist, but even if I had one, I would still have to use post-production software to get a great-looking image. Am I missing your point?

100% And after buying their optional 16mm sound head, I'm even more convinced that it's primarily a visual scanner. Thank God for AEO Light and iZotope RX (if necessary, often not).