I think the word you are looking for is “calculates.”
Thanks Martin. Very informative links.
Thanks for that explanation. Sounds like an additional camera. I wonder how this impacts the processing power needed to run the machine and the overall cost.
The processing is done inside a PC; we have a ~5k camera, with the old software we could run at max 12 fps, now it is 9.75 fps with the new algorithm.
You can add the Lasergraphics Director 4K, the Lasergraphics Director 10K (their newer model), the Scanstation Personal (starts at $50K I believe plus the setup and training costs) and the Arriscan 4K/6K is now called the Arriscan Classic with the latest model being the Arriscan XT. The cost of a new Scanstation, around $170K for the most common options (plus setup and training). Since 2019 they come with 4K and 6.5K sensor options (maybe other options as well). I think the full Kinetta cost is more like $140K now, but I could be mistaken and obviously the options will affect the price.
Excellent suggestions, thanks @filmkeeper! I will add those and start a list of the DIY machines that have been posted on these forums as well.
1 Like
Just a correction the Scanstation is priced starting around the $170K mark I think including 2 or 3 gates, that doesn’t include the set-up and mandatory training fees. The Director (Lasergraphics Director 10K not “Scanstation” Director 10K) would cost considerably more than that I’ve no idea what a quote on the D10K would be. The Director 4K’s are still supported by Lasergraphics, and still a very much an in-use scanner. From what I heard no company with one thought the 5K JAI cameras were an improvement.
1 Like
Thanks for that. The list is editable by anyone so feel free to make edits as you see fit. And let me know if it doesn’t let you edit for some reason 
Scanstation Archivist is the new model coming out this year that replaces the Personal. $40K 16/8mm, $50K 35/16mm. Extra options are HDR, archive gates for warped film, and mag audio reader. Adding all options is about $20K.
2 Likes
I cannot find any information on the inter webs about the forthcoming LaserGraphics ScanStation Archivist. What was your source for this info? Did you talk to them directly?
Both websites (LG and GD) don’t really list the correct features for the current Scanstation let alone anything else. A friend of mine will have one at their office in a few weeks. It has a fixed camera like the Personal, but it’s cheaper (starts at the same price as the HDS+) and has better features. From what I’ve been told so far it’s a massive improvement over the Personal. I’d be guessing they’re wanting to get a few early models out to some of their experienced users first before putting the units fully to market.
1 Like
It’s on the LG website now. It’s just called “Archivist” not “Scanstation Archivist” that is sensible since it’s quite a bit more basic than the full Scanstations.
1 Like
The LG Archivist has the same fatal flaw as the Blackmagic/Cintel: fixed sensor and lens position. That means formats smaller than 35mm have unacceptably low resolution.
The full Kinetta Archival Scanner, including 6.5K sensor, gates for 8/S8/9.5, 16/S16/17.5, and 35, capture computer with 16TB storage, lists for $129,995. Add monitors, a table, and a chair – and you have everything you need.
The Baby Kinetta (doesn’t do 35mm, platter capacity is 1300 feet rather than 2500, sensor is 5K x 3K) is $34,995, not including computer (about $3000). Includes gates for 8/S8/9.5 and 16/S16/17.5.
Both have a movable camera and lens so the user determines the framing and how to use their pixels. It’s the only scanner that does full edge-to-edge scanning of any format.
Both are portable and can be brought to an archive (many won’t let their film out of their hands) to use. Simple to operate.
It’s a bit much to call that a “fatal flaw” especially when one considers the number of flaws that the cintel has. The Kinetta can’t do a continuous-motion HDR capture is that a “fatal flaw”? Jeff has criticised that approach for HDR scanning in the past too, but LG has perfected it. I’m not bashing the Kinetta, it’s a great scanner, but every scanner has its limitations and a limitation isn’t necessarily a “fatal flaw”. There are some people who would describe any bayer scanner as “fatally flawed” as well. The cintel’s resolution is below 2K capturing 16mm, that’s not the case with the 35/16 Archivist (I think they’ve gone back to calling that model the Personal) it has a 6K Sony sensor with a ~5K overscan crop on your largest format. The cintel only has a 4K sensor, and as we all know it’s not a very good one.
You’re also comparing very differently priced machines. A $130K Kinetta vs. a $50K Archivist. The Kinetta/Scanstation is at a similar price-point with the same Sony 6.5K camera, but the Kinetta is cheaper. The Baby Kinetta vs. 16/8 Archivist are also at the same price-point with the Archivist being $40K including host computer, add on $2.5K for the HDR module and you have double-flash HDR scanning.
I’d agree that the 35/16/8 Scanstation Personal is unacceptably low resolution for 8mm, and the 35/16/8 Archivist won’t be a whole lot better. But the 16/8 model will be perfectly fine for 8mm for the vast majority of film material.
Hi everyone, we’ve collected some free/open DIY film-scanners (and related) projects @ Hackaday.io, check them out:
DIY film scanners | Hackaday.io
Hope that helps/inspires !
1 Like
Working on ideas for transport and came across this 28mm film scanner project and sharing for reference on this topic.
RE: that Lasergraphics machine…
Lasergraphics’ proprietary 2D optical pin registration system locates up to 8 perforations and is able to register the frame even if only one of the perforations is usable. The frame is stabilized in the X, Y, and rotation axes. Therefore, shrunken film can be effectively stabilized with no mechanical or software adjustments. All optical pin registration is performed during the scanning process, eliminating the need for any post-processing.
DROOL. I want that in a Kinograph! One day…
OpenCV does all of this. I think all the functions you’d need to pull this off can also use GPU acceleration for free, though I think OpenCV is primarily CUDA, so on a mac, it’d need to be CPU only now that Apple has basically dropped support for GPU acceleration that’s not for their own GPUs or Radeon cards. We’re starting some tests this week to see how OpenCV performs on Mac vs PC, i7 vs i9 vs Xeon, etc. I’m building a simple test cross-platform application to do the frame alignment (from Scanstation scans captured with optical registration turned off, so the film is not stable), and time each step to see where the improvements/bottlenecks are. Hopefully we’ll be running tests in about a week or so.
I’ve used OpenCV in the past. I suppose the bottleneck will be processing speed and the frame rate of the camera doing the capture for the CV imaging. Will it require a separate camera? At what speeds will we be able to scan at?
My guesses are:
-
you could use the same camera for CV of a video stream as you do for still capture, but you’d have to go slower than you would with a separate perf sensor
-
you could use a second camera to speed that up and that will cost a little more (but likely not much) and the speed you can scan it will be dependent on the frame rate of the CV camera and the computational power of the system it’s tied to (which could be totally separate from the rest of the system, as long as it’s capable of outputing a signal for camera trigger).
Overall I think it’s a very promising route. Let me know if you want a little funding for testing and/or if I can send you a reduced rig of parts (a film loop on motorized rollers, for example). I’d love to see us pursue this route.