New Retroscan - scans all formats!

WOAH. The folks behind the Retroscan just released a new model that can scan anything from 8 to 35mm. It is $10K. This is a great looking machine that seems to include everything you need to scan a film (minus the sound).

I would love your thoughts. How can Kinograph learn/improve from this design?

One thing that comes to mind is that warped film would probably not do very well in this design due to the lack of gate.

But as far a turn-key solution, this is really really nice. It looks easy to use, well built, and comes from a company with a good reputation.

1 Like

Here are some observations after taking a closer look:

1 - Price.
In order to truly scan all formats, you need to buy more parts. A full package with all parts is offered at $13K. Then you need to buy the software ($300) and provide your own PC. And shipping. All in, you’re probably looking at ~$15K.

Kinograph can do better than that on price, but we will still not be offering other formats initially. More on that below.

2 - All formats.
This is achieved by centering the small gauges on throughout the film path so that the film is always at the center of the camera’s view no matter the gauge. The camera then “zooms” in on the smaller gauge films by selecting a smaller portion of the sensor to capture images. This seems to be a reduction in resolution for small gauges R8/S8 is scanned at HD, 9.5/16mm at 2K, and presumably 35 somewhere between 2K and 4K. The creator does offer a Z-axis kit ($1295, includes extension tubes) so that the user can add optical enhancements like extension tubes, etc.

Kinograph will allow the camera to be moved up and down. A change in format should not mean a reduction in resolution.

3 - Image area is never touched.
This is pretty cool .The retroscan doesn’t use a capstan or any kind of sprocket/claw mechanism to move the film. Instead, it seems to just pull the film from the take-up reel motor. This means the image area is never touched, as it is in the Kinograph design by the PTR capstan. That’s a great feature.

I wonder how we could try to achieve the same. @ednisley recommended we try a friction drive and I think that might actually work to achieve the same. I haven’t had time to sketch out the mental design I have floating around. I hope to try this at some point in the coming months if time allows.

4 - Tension, film path
There are a couple of interesting things to note here. Firstly, there doesn’t seem to be any mechanism for tension feedback. No swing arm, hub, nothing to tell the system how taught the film is as it passes through the film path. I find this curious and wonder a) how it’s achieved, and b) if that means that the tension is always constant, or it can actually fluxuate. The only clues in the literature are the “electronic clutch,” which may mean an electromagnetic friction drive, but I’m not sure.

Secondly, the big rollers appear to have a simple concave shape that allows for any film gauge. This is opposed to a “step-down” roller like Kinograph uses where each gauge has a little shelf for the edges of the film to rest flat. This is an interesting approach but ultimately not the best, in my opinion, for brittle films. In this case, a flat area to support the film is best. Experimentation will prove me right or wrong on this.

5 - Gate
I am intrigued by the roller-only gate for its simplicity, but wonder how it performs with warped film. It’s unclear to me what the advantage of the roller-only design is from a mechanical point of view. Of course, it does make swapping out parts for different gauges simpler and perhaps cheaper.

I’m experimenting with both a flat gate for warped film and a curved gate for film that is in good shape. Both will have very low friction coefficients to minimize wear on the film.

5 - Film guides (springs)
This is a great idea. If you look closely at the screw-in film guides that make up the gate, you’ll notice that one side is spring-loaded. This pushes the edge of the film to one side so that the horizontal position is consistent. Great for shrunken film!

I really like this and will try to find a way to incorporate a similar approach into Kinograph. I think it is more elegant and simple than the approach I had in my mind.

6 - Speed
A bit of a “gotcha,” here. Scanning 35mm has a max speed of 4fps due to the motor extensions required. I’m assuming this is due to a gearing-down of the motor that drives the larger reels.

7 - Feedback
The site mentions “separate motion sensors on the film mean a constant running speed.” I’m not sure how this is designed but it could be a rotary encoder on one of the rollers, as I do not see anything else that would provide this.

Kinograph is also incorporating a rotary encoder to give feedback to the system on speed and linear travel.

8 - LightPin sprocket detection
It works on clear film which is a must. In a video online the maker mentions in the comments that he looks at the bottom edge of the sprocket holes as his trigger point. This is a good approach as the top of the holes can often be damaged by claw advancement mechanisms.

But how does this light source work on warped film if there is no flat gate? Kinograph is pursuing a flat-gate solution that would ideally provide stable results no matter how warped the film was.

9 - Sound module
Not featured in the machine, but worth looking at. This beauty seems to do it all, but requires proprietary software to do its work. Something to keep in mind for future versions of Kinograph.

10 - Audience
The verbiage in the copy on the site refers often to “shops” as the main client type for these machines. In my mind, that means small businesses who charge for digitization of other peoples’ films. Of course, there’s no reason this would not work for an archive or filmmaker, especially when combined with the sound module.

It’s upgradable design makes it a great choice for anyone who has an urgent need for a particular type of job and who might encounter other types of film later on. That’s something Kinograph can learn from.

Overall, however, the proprietary nature of the machine means that if the company dies, its manufacturing secrets and code base go down with it. Perhaps that intellectual property would be sold, or even made open-source (we can dream). But this locks the owner into a “black box” they cannot troubleshoot on their own or with the help of a resourceful community as in the case with Kinograph.

In sum, this is a great design that provides what are, I’m sure, many attractive features to most users at a VERY attractive price. I still believe, however, that Kinograph can achieve the same results at a cheaper price and with the big advantage of the community support that it will bring along with it.


If there really is no solid tension control on the film itself and the design relies on an electronic clutch or “friction drive” behind the take up reel, I’d be very worried about slippage on the film itself. Anyone that’s ever hand-wound film by turning a take-up reel knows that there’s a degree of tension beyond which the film will tighten or cinch on the reel, causing it to slip over itself, potentially scratching it. Using a drive behind the take-up reel to pull the film through the entire machine seems… risky :frowning: I’m sure the Retroscan folks have tested this to some degree and the film path is relatively short, but it still makes me nervous.

This might be compounded if the film is inadequately or improperly cleaned - if it’s still dirty then the dirt will be like sandpaper between the layers of film - if the film has been over-lubricated or the cleaning agent hasn’t fully evaporated then the likelihood of slippage is even higher. It also seems wild that the transport system is supposed to be able to accommodate 8mm up to 35mm with minimal adjustment. There’s a huge HUGE difference in mass between a 50’ 8mm reel and 1000’ of 35mm!


I agree the tension has my stumped/worried. But they’ve been in the business for almost 20 years and I am no expert so maybe they know something I don’t.

Good point about cleaning and tension.

The motor extension kit seems to provide some additional motors, perhaps beefier or just geared-down (only 4fps scanning 35mm with the extension kit).

1 Like

Biggest problem with MovieStuff products is the proprietary software which is purchased from a 3rd party developer. Very black box attitude and hands-off lack of software support there and very sketchy details about what the actual requirements are to run it. Also, virtually no support as Windows software increments versions over time. Next beef of mine is the camera which is multiple generations behind the times at only 2K/HD max resolution. Heck, even my PHONE does 4K ! Would anyone these days seriously consider scanning 35mm at only 2K ? Who are they kidding ? I’m intrigued that they are offering trade-in deals but I have not yet called in for the details, my old Workprinter XP has been gathering dust for years, just too darned kludgy.

1 Like

Roger Don Evans is the guy behind Moviestuff. I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t posted on this forum before.

I have a Moviestuff Retroscan Mark 1 (the previous generation film transfer machine). I love it! To add complexity to the process, I use his proprietary Windows software on a Mac running Boot Camp. It works great!

Before criticizing the Mark II, it helps to understand that Roger’s market is home movie transfer shops. Their clients don’t give a hoot about 35mm. They don’t even have any 35mm film prints. They all have 8mm and 16mm home movies. So transferring them to 2K and cropping that down to 1080p is just fine, because they’re going to burn them to standard DVDs anyway. (We may not like that, but, again, we’re not Roger’s market.)

In my case, I restore public domain movies and offer them as clips for licensing on Getty Images. 4K would be nice, but I have clients still licensing stuff from SD. 1080p is still very viable. 4K is nice but totally unnecessary. (Eventually, it will probably be necessary, but it’s not right now.)

Also, the Mark II is an already-built, ready-to-use product. I don’t have to engineer anything. I don’t have to build anything. I don’t enjoy that aspect at all. So having a product ready to use out of the box for $13K is hugely beneficial, because the next price point up is the Cintel Film Scanner at $30K.

Lastly: if the 2K camera is objectionable, Roger encourages customers to engineer their own solutions. He has customers who rig up their own cameras to his equipment. He encourages it! But he doesn’t warrant his gear if you alter it. (Fair, if you ask me.)

The Mark I works as advertised. Roger is very responsive to his customers’ issues. I have every reason to believe that the Mark II will also be an awesome machine. He is building an optical soundtrack sensor for it now. I have no doubt that if he finds a 4K camera vendor that can sell him cameras that work and are at the right price point, he will add those to the Mark I as well.


Thanks @ToddRuel! I hope my review above does not come across as criticism of Roger or Moviestuff. I highly respect all that he has done and look to him as the standard to live up to!

1 Like

Matthew, no offense taken. There are several issues I have with the RetroScan Universal Mark 1, but on the whole, Roger has engineered and built a really good product at an approachable price point. (By contrast, unapproachable = the LaserGraphics ScanStation starting at $50K for the cheapest model.) His product support and knowledge of all issues regarding film transfer are outstanding.

He continues to work toward the kinds of products that a prosumer like me would want in a film transfer machine. For instance, a 4K camera sounds like a no-brainer, but there are huge hurdles to overcome. The two main barriers are finding a camera vendor willing to supply the unit at an affordable price and engineering a light source that will be appropriate for 4K. As of this writing, he still hasn’t accomplished this goal yet.

I wrote my counterpoint, because I don’t normally go out of my way to be a cheerleader for a particular vendor, but Roger’s Moviestuff business really has built a nice product at a realistic, achievable price point for people who don’t own high-end post-production houses. When someone deserves a shout out and an advocate, I’m happy to be that person.


Flir has 4k cameras using Sony IMX sensors for under $600. This doesn’t seem like a big stretch, to be honest. Cameras that run less than that are likely to have all kinds of other issues anyway. That’s the last place you want to skimp when building a scanner, to be honest. I don’t know much about the Retroscan in terms of details, but if the film stops in the frame, a rolling shutter camera like this is fine. It might be trickier with a constant motion scanner, but from what I recall the Retroscan is not fast, so it could work.



The Universal units are continuous feed scanners so any camera would need to have a global shutter. There are other considerations about employing cameras with larger sensors that I addressed at length in another post.


Bruce, you wrote:

Biggest problem with MovieStuff products is the proprietary software which is purchased from a 3rd party developer. Very black box attitude and hands-off lack of software support there and very sketchy details about what the actual requirements are to run it.

Not true. All the specs for the software and our system are right up front on the website under the PC specs link. Easy to find and never has been secret in my 20 years of business. Also, our phone and email are right up front so I am always available if a customer has questions about the unit or the software. Customer support is never hands off at my company. I’m always available.

Bruce, you wrote:

Also, virtually no support as Windows software increments versions over time.

Again, not true. The software upgrades only stop when we stop support for a given product. Honestly not sure where you are getting this information. True, software meant for 32 bit Windows XP 15+ years ago does not currently work on 64 bit Windows 10 but, then again, what software does? And why should it be expected to?

Bruce, you wrote:

Next beef of mine is the camera which is multiple generations behind the times at only 2K/HD max resolution. Heck, even my PHONE does 4K ! Would anyone these days seriously consider scanning 35mm at only 2K ? Who are they kidding ?

Clearly not anyone that thinks the camera in a cell phone sold to millions of users worldwide to offset production cost is going to be relevant to the camera in a scanner sold to hundreds in a niche market. :wink:

Just joking. Our 2K camera really scans closer to 3K resolution. I covered this in another post so I’m not going to get into it here but there are a variety of practical reasons why we use the camera we do.

Bruce, you wrote:

I’m intrigued that they are offering trade-in deals but I have not yet called in for the details, my old Workprinter XP has been gathering dust for years, just too darned kludgy

Well, the WorkPrinter-XP was a very popular model…18 years ago. As an aside, there were people doing HD transfers on a WorkPrinter-XP looooong before there were any HD scanners from the likes of LaserGraphics, FlashScan, etc.

Anyway, if you would like to chat, give me a shout! I’m sure we could work out something for you. I look forward to talking with you.


Hi, all!

Tried posting this separately but it seemed to be hung up for approval so I did this as a reply to Matthew’s post, instead.

I will make this brief as I can, considering everything that’s been discussed! :slight_smile:

As Todd as mentioned, the majority of my 20,000+ customers are small mom and pop shops doing home movie transfers. They aren’t simpletons but they also don’t know or often do not care whether they are scanning in 2K, 8 bit, 10 bit, 16 bit, etc because, for the most part, they are outputting DVDs at standard def and sometimes BluRay or high def files on a hard drive. So the 2K camera we already provide is working at a resolution that is in excess of what my market currently demands.

The other smaller market we service are archives. Now, one might think that an archive would want something like 4-6k resolution. But, really, why would they? Data storage considerations and post production concerns aside, most archives are working on an inventory that may very well take them a decade to work their way through. Does anyone really think that 6k will be the industry standard 10 years from now? Not likely. So what do archives really want? Well, they are concerned by three main things with their library: Stabilize, archive and access. Stabilize means they need to clean and stabilize the films to prevent future degradation. Archive means they need to scan and store them. And access means they need to be available in a common form, currently using a DVD, BluRay or a digital file with a water mark.

Notice that “restoration” is not part of those three concerns. Why? Because restoration is a totally different process.

So what is really happening at most archives? Let’s use the Academy Film Archives in Hollywood as an example as they have been using our equipment exclusively since 2003. They have used our scanners to archive every home movie that Steve McQueen’s family put in the Archive some years back. These were actually done in SD way back then but serve exactly the same purpose now. Someone doing a documentary on McQueen would check out the screener DVD or maybe even get a digital file with a watermark, choose footage and slug it into their doc temporarily and then, later, once they figure out exactly what footage they need, come back and requisition that particular portion of the original film grouping and take it someplace with maybe a high end LaserGraphic to scan in 6k. If this were 10 years from now, they might have it scanned in 20k or 3D reconstruction or whatever. The user might even take that final high resolution scan and THEN do restoration of the footage, if need be. Anyway, you get the point that whether the screener was in SD, HD, 2K or 6K, none of that is really relevant to the needs of the final user. The archive copy just needs to be good enough to see the overall quality of the original footage so the user can determine if it is good enough to use for their project.

Now, one might rightly say, “Ah, but if the footage were already in 4k or 6k, then they would not have to have it rescanned!” Is this really true? Is an archive intern that learned three months ago how to run a LaserGraphic going to do as a good a job as a professional colorist that’s been doing it for years in a commercial house that uses the same equipment? I think we all know the answer to that question. In fact, one of the problems faced by archives is when they are “gifted” a big chunk of money to get a high end scanner and then need to train someone to use it. Once this person gets good at using it, they now possess skills worth more than what the archive can afford to pay them so turn over is high. By comparison, our scanners produce a better image than the archives really need and is simple to maintain and operate by most any intern or employee with minimal training. Is a $10,000 Universal Mark-II as good as a $250,000 LaserGraphics? Or course not. But the larger question is whether a LaserGraphics is $240,000 better relative to the needs of the archive in question. :wink:

Now, regarding questions about how the unit works, yes, scanning 35mm is slower at about 4fps for 4 perf but, then again, an archive could easily afford 6 of our units for far less than the price of one LaserGraphics and with money left over. If you need 24fps volume then you run your 35mm film on all 6 units. If you aren’t in a hurry, then you can spread your various different formats across all 6 units. Either way, you have redundancy that you do not have trying to force everything through one scanner operated by someone with premium skills.

Regarding tension on the film, the back tension is a simple, old style spring/felt slip clutch. Ultra smooth and very reliable and easy to service, if ever necessary. Cinching is no problem because the take up reel will never have loose film and, if someone really is concerned about film safety, they will no doubt be cleaning it and will get a tight wrap when they rewind onto the source reel during prep before scanning. The only time cinching off the source reel would be a problem is if someone isn’t cleaning the film and prepping it properly before the transfer. But, even if they did just put a customer reel right on the machine, it will work fine. Tension ranges from very little to a max of about 12 ounces; all of which is enough to keep the film tight as it passes by the camera. Also, there is no “friction” wheel on the take up. The take up and rewind motors have electronic clutches so there is direct drive on both. No slipping of any kind and the full torque of the motor can be applied to the reel, regardless of whether it is 8mm or 35mm.

Regarding the digital zoom function, this is an option in the software that is only used by small, high volume shops working in HD only. If you fill the 2K sensor with a 16mm frame, then the 8mm area of the sensor is roughly around HD in resolution. So we are using the software to control the camera to choose what area of interest the camera accesses, depending on whether you are capturing 16mm, R8 or S8 film. This makes it easier for small shops to switch between the three most popular formats without having to change lenses or tubes. If you want full 2K for all formats, then take it out of the HD zoom mode and use extension tubes to fill the 2K sensor.

Can we make a unit that is higher resolution? Sure, that is no problem if the camera sensor does not increase in size which, of course, is the big trick. Our unit has a continuous feed transport so the frame is in continuous motion. This means we need a bright light and a fast shutter speed to freeze the film as it goes by for a sharp picture. If we move from 2k up to, say 4k and the sensor size increases, then the extension tube length must increase to accommodate the larger sensor. This, in turn, means more loss of light due to a high bellows factor so then the light source has to be even brighter. And the longer tube also means less depth of field to focus all the across the film. This means using a higher f-stop which, in turn, means an even greater loss of light, etc. So going from 2k to 4k isn’t just about changing out the cameras. There are many things to consider because it is a domino effect; change one thing and everything associated downstream from that decision changes, as well.

As far as using a 2K sensor for 35mm, this really is not an issue and for some reasons that may not be obvious. Beyond the needs of a typical archive as discussed above, it becomes a matter of math. I’d venture that, on 99% of all film being archived on our units, the target image is 4:3 and not 16:9. Also, our 2K sensor is 4:3 and not 16:9.

Why does this matter?

Well, as a thought experiment, if you had something like a 3K camera with a 16:9 sensor, that would be roughly 3000 x 1688. If you used that to capture 4:3 material (without sacrificing anything in the film frame), the center 4:3 area of the 3K 16:9 sensor would measure out to be 2251 x 1688. That is almost the same as the 2048 x 1536 sensor we use in our 2K scanner now. The mythical 3K frame would add only 76 lines on the left and right and about 100 lines top and bottom which, IMHO, would not make any appreciable difference in terms of resolution gain. So, in reality, if you are using the entire 4:3 sensor of our scanner, you are effectively capturing closer to 3K and not 2K because, for 4:3 material, frame height is the key, not frame width. Obviously, if you were scanning something akin to a 16:9 original, like Super 16, then you would need the extra width. But, for 4:3 material typical of old 35mm film, adding extra width does you no good since it would simply be covered by black bars. At any rate, scanning 35mm in 3k for archive purposes seems like overkill to most people working in the business when the screener files will likely be in SD or HD only. And anyone that has a new commercial 35mm project will most likely have the budget to take their stuff to a big transfer house with a LaserGraphics or some other high end unit so, again, going up beyond 2k presently serves no real purpose for my two markets and would simply make the unit more expensive for the majority of customers that don’t need it.

Hope this explains a few things.

Later all!
Roger Evans
owner, MovieStuff, LLC


Humbled by your taking the time to respond so generously, @Roger_Evans. Thank you for sharing your experience with us.

The points you make are well made and I learned a ton from your post. On the shoulders of giants…


1 Like

My pleasure! Hope what I wrote made sense. :slight_smile:


I agree with you 1000% Roger has come up with innovative designs, I am retired and unfortunately cannot afford one of his machines but I am in the process of building my own, It will not be as nice as Rogers but it should work well, I have made a few changes from his design, I use stepper motors to drive the film, I can control the speed precisely and also use a Lightpin unit that I purchased from Keyence (FU-20 and FS-N41P) units , one is the sensor the other the amplifier unit, I am using a 4k video camera triggered by this sensor and creating a series of sequentially numbered .TIFF files that I then feed to Adobe Premiere Pro and assemble a final movie that I then pass to After Effects to stabilize and with the use of several plugins remove the grain and enhance the images nicely, I also color correct using either the Adobe Color Corrections tools or Davinci Resolve.
I am experimenting with several gate configurations as well and its been hard for me to get the film to lie perfectly flat under the camera with this method, I am sure its just my machining is no where as accurate as those developed by Roger, I am currently machining a gate very similar to the one utilized by the Muller Data Framescanner and will keep you posted on its accuracy, I simply create my own circuit boards using off the shelf stepper motors, resolvers and arduino processors to control the machine. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from others who are also interested in building their own machine for personal use.
Al Cassista

Sounds like you’ve made great progress, @Alcassista! We’d love to see pics of your machine if you get a chance. Start a new thread so we can ask questions. Excited to see what you’ve been building…

Good morning, Matthew,

Great to hear from you, I will take some photos and start a thread on your site just as soon as I can, I have been working on my machine for quite a while now and expected to have it working months ago.

At 75, everything takes me longer to accomplish that I think it should, and wife recently had brain surgery so its not been easy finding the time to complete the machine but its almost complete.

I am fortunate to have several machine tools here in my home so fairly easy for me to try various configurations till I get it right and I am happy to share lessons learned with the other folks on your site.

Rogers machines are excellent but simply out of my financial range so I felt that my building a machine from scratch was the best idea for me, plus it gave me excuses for machining precision components and creating circuit boards as well as programming software to drive it.

I had contacted the software vendor who provides the software that drives Rogers machines, I wanted to purchase a copy and modify my machine design to incorporate it but the vendor had no interest in assisting me in any way. I don’t blame him really, he probably though I was a competitor of Rogers and did not want to create any problems, instead I decided to simply let my machine take a series of sequential .Tiff files and use the Adobe Suite of tools which I have here to handle the rest.

As Rogers machines evolved I tried to duplicate his various gate configurations as well as his sprocket detection methodologies and experienced most of the same problems some others had in the past. While my wife was recovering from her surgery I did a bit of research on many of the major very expensive machines from mostly European Vendors like Muller and Flashscan and Arri to see what their gate assemblies looked like and built my machine in a modular fashion so I could duplicate them and see what worked best for my machine.

I found that accurate sprocket hole detection was my biggest problem and tried various methods including the LED Photo transistor pairs using various wavelengths of light with varying degrees of success, Once I saw Rogers new approach using a lightpin technology, I contacted a company called Keyence and they were more than happy to assist me and I was able to purchase the components they felt would help me achieve my goal. I have just finished machining the unit and will be testing it soon and will keep you posted in the thread.

I should be able to create a thread within the next 30 days or so explaining my process step by step and identify my problems and share solutions to those as soon as I can.

Thanks again for your support

Al Cassista

1 Like

Al I am so impressed by your just-do-it attitude and approach to your machine. It’s very inspiring. You’re showing us kids how it’s done!

Too bad about the software vendor. What would you like the software to do? Perhaps posting about that on the forums will grab someone’s interest. I saw a newcomer post in the Introductions section that he is a software engineer…

I am VERY jealous of your shop setup. It’s my life’s goal to have one like it. Right now I am yearning for a laser cutter or router, a CNC mill, and a CNC lathe. Alas, they cost money. ho hum.

I hope your wife has fully recovered from her surgery. It’s a nasty business, healing!

All the best!

Just have to put my little 2 cents in about this whole Retro Scan system. Long time user of Retro Scans from the Sniper all the way up to the RetroScan Universal MK I with the LightPin upgrades. Have been very attracted to the Kinograph community due to their tenacity, humbleness and ability to produce a high-quality project that will give quality to the masses at a fraction of the cost. Now on with the constructive criticism as I believe no one should be immune to this. The claim that the 2K is closer to 3K? Couldn’t find that post and would like to give it a read as that seems counterintuitive and a stretch. Now I do not use the RetroScan software because I find it limiting in many regards especially cropping and gain/sharpening control. I use the SDK from Pointgrey Flycap, also @friolator, I completely agree with you the 2K cameras are “chameleon 3” with a resolution of 2048 × 1536 on a 1/8” sensor, yes TINY. Close to 3K? not without some sort of “gentle” upscaling. As we all know upscaling is the last thing we want. In addition, a 1/8” sensor with a resolution of 2048 × 1536, cannot hold a flame to a 1” sensor with 2048 × 1536 resolution. Yes, it is amazing that there is development in the region of film scanning there is no doubt and I have appreciated the advancement in sophisticated transport and sprocket detection. Although, the MKII has a hefty price tag for what you get, and a lot of what you do not need (Z-axis Zoom seems like focusing could become an issue and another hardware component to fail to leave you dead in the water until fixed, I am sure they are built like tanks Roger, Chinese made tanks), It seems some of the ideas for this are a revamp of the Muller FilmFabriek scanner in terms of sprocket detection, and not to mention how old that system is. And how NEW the MKII is. And yes @ToddRuel Roger’s market is mom and pop shops making DVDs which we fortunately (or unfortunately) will see the end of. But the creation of this device boasts that there is a new market trying to be tapped into and the standard for that market is quite high by design. It should be able to stand the test of that standard to remain a great cost effective alternative if that is the route you wish to take. Entering into 35mm comes with a great deal of responsibility and quality to match it. Especially when you can get a Davinci Cintel for not much more money and the amazing support, features and community (cough actually a forum for users to post too and discuss, rather than a FB group). Also, when was this advertised to be available? September? I feel for those that have waited on this timeline as they just got shipped out this last week it appears.

Good to remember, always. I think this is something that anyone using, designing, building, or just thinking about film scanning machines needs to consider :wink:

The talents of a skilled archivist, a scanner operator and a restorer are certainly related and overlap, but ultimately have slightly different aims.