reflecta Super 8 Scanner

[Joerg Polzfusz]

https://reflecta.de/de/products/detail/~id.731/reflecta-Super-8-Scanner---------ab-Februar-2014-erhaeltlich.html

[Geoff Howell]

looks interesting, a fair bit cheaper than Tobin and Moviestuf too.

 

I wonder if it's a 100% new build or a refit of a 30+ yr old projector

 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

I wonder if it's a 100% new build or a refit of a 30+ yr old projector

 

I guess that a 100% new build in China is cheaper than actually refitting any older projector (especially when you expect to sell a large number of these devices)

[Zac Fettig]

It probably is cheaper to build one from scratch in production, but it sure does look like a projector refit. Which is probably cheaper for low volume runs.

[Andries Molenaar]

 

I guess that a 100% new build in China is cheaper than actually refitting any older projector (especially when you expect to sell a large number of these devices)

 

 

I guess that a 100% new build in China is cheaper than actually refitting any older projector (especially when you expect to sell a large number of these devices)

Indeed, it is newly manufactured. Look close at the images.

[Geoff Howell]

more info here

apparently it captures at just under 7000dpi.

hopefully there will be some demos soon

[Josh Gladstone]

6k resolution at 9 fps? I'd love to see samples. I wonder what kind of camera they're using.

[David Cunningham]

If it scans at 7000 dpi and a super 8mm frame is less than 0.275 inches that means it scan the frame at just about 1920 lines.... Also known as HD 1929x1080. Best case it might be 2K but that would definitely not be 6k.

[David Cunningham]

If it's a 14MP camera in a 16x9 format then it's scanning at about 4K. I'm very confused by the numbers presented.

[Anthony Schilling]

If it's a 14MP camera in a 16x9 format then it's scanning at about 4K. I'm very confused by the numbers presented.

Same here. 4K is about 8.3MP?

[David Cunningham]

4k 16x9 is 3840x2160 and thus about 8.3MP

 

4k scanning of a full frame at 4x3 is 4096x3112 which is almost 12.8 megapixel.

 

6k wide sensors at 6114x3160... 19.5 megapixel

 

6k at 4x3 would be 6144x4620... 28 megapixel

 

So, this think is definitely not 6k.

 

If this thing can scan at 7000 dpi then that's only 1610x1050 on a standard 4x3 super 8 frame. That's not even HD.

 

So. All these numbers leave me head scratching.

[David Cunningham]

So, it says it does 1920x1080 output from a standard Super 8 frame. So, assuming the 1080 height and a 1436 width in a 4x3 sensor that would be only a 1.5 MP camera. If it's 1920 wide sensor cropped to 1436, it would be 2MP.

 

So, the 7000 DPI starts to make sense as that would be 1610x1050... very close to 1436x1080.

[Josh Gladstone]

You're right, it says dpi but I read pixels. Tricky.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

BTW: Some texts by reflecta sound like two frames get captured at once: "Scanning Time: 5,0 seconds / 2 pictures (about 2 Std. 46 min for15m Super 8 FilmReel)" (BTW: Std. = Stunden = hours)

(Source: https://reflecta.de/uploads/files/20140116115051_Datasheet-Super-8-Scanner-englisch.pdf )

As a 15m-reel normally holds 50ft of film (=3600 frames), 5s per 3 frames would result in 2h 30min...

[Anthony Schilling]

Looks like it will only handle reversal, but for it's intended market i'd say it's about time something like this has come along. The way digital video is evolving, I don't see why we need a $100K plus option to subsidize the mechanical and software aspects of scanning film. I keep thinking or stating that a film scanner revolution is in the works. This is most likely a fairly decent but consumer level scanner for home movies. But I bet it won't be long until Blackmagic Design unveils an affordable scanner designed for film makers.

[Zac Fettig]

Looks like it will only handle reversal, but for it's intended market i'd say it's about time something like this has come along. The way digital video is evolving, I don't see why we need a $100K plus option to subsidize the mechanical and software aspects of scanning film. I keep thinking or stating that a film scanner revolution is in the works. This is most likely a fairly decent but consumer level scanner for home movies. But I bet it won't be long until Blackmagic Design unveils an affordable scanner designed for film makers.

 

You'd think Kodak would have realized by now it is in their best interest to build some low cost, reasonable quality digital acquisition devices for film. Before the last viable part of their business goes the way of the Dodo bird.

 

You'd think....

[Perry Paolantonio]

Here's my take on this: it's essentially a very slow film chain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to be sprocketed.

 

Since we got our scanstation a few months ago, we've probably put about 50,000 feet of Super8 and Regular 8 film through it. I'd say less than half of that would have gone through a projector without problems, due to shrinkage, perf damage, splices made with athletic tape (seriously), etc. We're talking about films going back as as far as the late 1940s (for R8). But even some of the Super8 has been in such rough shape that I'd be surprised if it could actually make it through something like this, with a sprocket-based transport.

 

One client brought in Super 8 Reversal that he shot less than a year ago. His projector tore massive holes between each perf, and he couldn't get it to project anymore. We were able to scan it and get a decent result, but I seriously doubt any transport based on sprockets would have been able to do it because there was basically nothing left for it to grab onto.

 

Personally, (and I fully understand I'm biased here), I wouldn't put any of my own Super 8 through anything that's projector-like anymore. Even my own films from the early 90s are starting to show signs of shrinkage already, and I take good care of them.

 

-perry

[Anthony Schilling]

 

You'd think Kodak would have realized by now it is in their best interest to build some low cost, reasonable quality digital acquisition devices for film. Before the last viable part of their business goes the way of the Dodo bird.

 

You'd think....

Exactly, i've been wondering this for years! With digital imaging technology, software, and PC power these days, I see no reason why a really good scanner for S8/S16mm couldn't have been produced for the mountain of existing film, amateurs, film schools ect... for around $1K as opposed to $100K? This kind of digital/cost road block has been broken down everywhere else except for film. But maybe now is the time where that will finally change? Hope it's not too late and digital technology will help stabilize the gap for those who choose film, old or new.

[Josh Gladstone]

Blackmagic may or may not be working on such a device. Until then, theres always the diy route. I would like to build a sprocketless multi-gauge scanner based on the stepper motor/arduino stuff I've learned so far. The Muller HM has always been inspirational to me. Sort of a pipe dream though...

[Robert Houllahan]

I don't think a scanner for $1k will be much good, too many compromises in sensor, optics and being built around an old projector mechanism is not the best idea for all of the reasons others have already stated. That said I think we are already seeing a drop in pricing of scans and that will continue.

 

-Rob-

[Perry Paolantonio]

Blackmagic may or may not be working on such a device. Until then, theres always the diy route. I would like to build a sprocketless multi-gauge scanner based on the stepper motor/arduino stuff I've learned so far. The Muller HM has always been inspirational to me. Sort of a pipe dream though...

 

*If* Blackmagic does come out with something, and their past pattern holds true, it'll be A: cheap and B: totally broken for 2-3 years! Oh, and and C: Features listed on their web site may never actually be implemented...

 

That said, I don't think they bought Cintel for the scanner tech, I think it was for the larger patent portfolio. I'd honestly be surprised if they come out with a cheap scanner, but hey - you never know!

 

-perry

Edited January 16, 2014 by Perry Paolantonio

[Andries Molenaar]

Here's my take on this: it's essentially a very slow film chain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to be sprocketed.

 

Since we got our scanstation a few months ago, we've probably put about 50,000 feet of Super8 and Regular 8 film through it. I'd say less than half of that would have gone through a projector without problems, due to shrinkage, perf damage, splices made with athletic tape (seriously), etc. We're talking about films going back as as far as the late 1940s (for R8). But even some of the Super8 has been in such rough shape that I'd be surprised if it could actually make it through something like this, with a sprocket-based transport.

 

One client brought in Super 8 Reversal that he shot less than a year ago. His projector tore massive holes between each perf, and he couldn't get it to project anymore. We were able to scan it and get a decent result, but I seriously doubt any transport based on sprockets would have been able to do it because there was basically nothing left for it to grab onto.

 

Personally, (and I fully understand I'm biased here), I wouldn't put any of my own Super 8 through anything that's projector-like anymore. Even my own films from the early 90s are starting to show signs of shrinkage already, and I take good care of them.

 

-perry

Likely most people just have drawers or boxes with 50ft reels. Not edited at all.

 

It is bit unlikely that half of the world's Super-8 stash would not roll through a projector at this time.

[Perry Paolantonio]

Likely most people just have drawers or boxes with 50ft reels. Not edited at all.

 

It is bit unlikely that half of the world's Super-8 stash would not roll through a projector at this time.

 

That may be - but of that 50k feet we've put through our ScanStation, almost all of it is home movies. I'm not saying it's enough of a sample to make a statement about the world's collection of Super 8 film, but so much of what we've gotten has been such a mess that I think it's safe to say a very large percentage of the home movies out there wouldn't do so well in a sprocketed transfer system.

 

That said, I just don't see why, at this stage of the game, anyone would want to put their film through a system that could cause damage, when there are so many viable alternatives, and more appearing all the time. On the high end, just off the top of my head, I can think of almost half a dozen machines that are gentle on film (ScanStation, GoldenEye, Kinetta, Flashtransfer Choice, Xena - and there are more if you include 16/35-only scanners). Hell, the Retro-8 on the low end is sprocketless. To me, it just seems like a gamble to put your film through a machine like the reflecta, especially if you're only getting HD out of it.

 

Again, I'm biased, but we've been researching the purchase of a scanner for the past 10 years, and in that time the idea of getting a sprocketed unit never even entered into the equation. We had to wait a while for the price/performance to hit a point where it makes sense, but now there are quite a few systems out there.

 

As Rob said, though - as these scanners come down in price, the cost of doing transfers will come down too, making systems like the reflecta less relevant.

 

-perry

[Andries Molenaar]

From two photos which don't give an insight it is only your assumption that there is a sprocket. And that that would be bad.

The housing is so compact that it is unlikely that there is much mechanics inside.

The reflecta will drive the cost down. It is now $1800 but it may drop soon and then become the $1k scanner.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Andries Molenaar

[Perry Paolantonio]

Yes, I'm assuming it's sprocketed, but that's because of the pivoting arms that look like they snap in over the wheels are a mechanical feature of many sprocket guided film paths. I could be wrong - without more pictures, who knows?

 

That said, at the speed this scans, I can't see this being used professionally in a scanning service, so how would it drive the cost of scanning down? I mean, I guess if you buy your own system and do your own films, but at 5 seconds/2 frames it's 2.5 hours to scan a 50 foot reel of Super 8, and for all that effort you're only getting HD. We can do that same film on the ScanStation in just over 90 seconds, at 2k.

 

Let's say you have 1000 feet of Super 8 - just 20 rolls. It would cost less to have that scanned professionally, to 2k in some cases, than it would cost to buy this scanner -- even if the reflecta drops to $1000 as you predict. 20 rolls isn't that much for a home movie collection, so it doesn't make economic sense to buy this for that kind of material when you can have it scanned professionally for less.

 

I'm all for more scanners in the market, don't get me wrong - it just makes things better for everyone to have that kind of competition, but I feel scanners like this aren't much better than DIY setups and I don't see how the reflecta will spur competition in a meaningful way.