Wolverine Film Scanner evaulation and quality check
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- A first look at my newest piece of archiving equipment, the Wolverine film scanner. The quality is superb from this unit.
If you have old movie films you want transferred I offer this service as mail in. Please contact me by email for more information
volt@telus.net - Наука та технологія
A BIG GIANT THANK YOU, ALL I EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WOLVERINE SCANNER, AWESOME
Mr. Voltivids, thank you for your video. I have been looking at videos about the wolverine or scanners like it. I see so many videos on UA-cam about almost anything, and I wish I coud have recorded a few of the surgical procedures I scrubbed in on; But in the 80s and 90s no easy way to record a surgical procedures like a brain surgery for teaching or personal purpose. I see in your other videos you repair electronic devices all those little components look the same to me. Good job on the videos your a good teacher thank you!
Fantastic walkthrough and review - thank you! I did notice that your demo of captured footage from "Mr Gullible" was stretched to 16x9 for the digital part, but kept the original 4x3 for the analog capture. The analog capture looked pretty good!
My analog chain is pretty good. The wolverine is better. The stretching to 16:9 was done by my writing software. I didn't do it that is how it rendered out even though it looked fine on preview.
*Glad I decided to get the **Bestt.Digital** slide scanner. It us very easy to use, and as an added bonus it can hook up to HDMI on a TV and be used as a slide projector.*
Perfect example of just how far we have come with technology.
I'll be darn. Neat seeing your old light up there.
Pretty good evaluation! Lots of nice techniques that you showed us as well. My Wolverine arrives today. Thanks, Tim in Colorado
This was a first look. Much better quality has been obtained after i figured out tricks like doing the crop on the PC and setting the zoom level on the wolverine back to capture the entire film frame including the sprocket hole.
@@12voltvids can I get the software you are using?
@@jefffoster3557 i use Adobe premiere CS6
Hello I’d like to think you for posting this. You swayed me into buying this and it’s awesome I have had a few jams but nothing catastrophic. Thank
One thing I forget to mention, there is a felt pad that cleans the film directly before it is scanned. It is just to the left of the light table. Works great is cleaning debris off the emulsion side of the film, which is where the camera is focused.
Stunningly more clear ! Amazing output
nice to see inside of the new machine, I have the original 200ft machine. I notice the 'new' take up motor is widely available at ebay if you search for 3rpm motor. thank heavens for that, I am sure it wont be long before i need another new motor! Thanks for opening this up and making a video
I have been using it now for a few weeks and doing plenty of film orders for customers, so I will be doing a follow up video soon. Just transferring roll number 62 right now. (Most have been 200 footers and a few 400's)
The take up motor on this is much higher than 3 RPM. It is more like 30 RPM as there is a slip collar on the take up spool.
ahhh, memories! i still own a Fumeo 9131 variable speed telecine. Used to be in this field for years
Franco Coccini
I have a goko system and an eiki 16mm. Trouble is they are limited to 480i as that is what camera is built in. Today if it isn't HD people don't want it.
Indeed! your new Wolverine film scanner is not that bad after all. With some post processing and tweeking, could be perfectly usable.
@@FrancoCocciniI'm sorry to contradict someone who says he has been a long time in this world .. but the powder is really crap, and I'm not just saying it.
@@antoniosgambelluri35 powder?
I have one of these, but read the manual and found that there are three tabs not 2 that you have to place the leader under. That alone could affect the sharpness of your copy and definitely was why it jammed when you first started it.
PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THIS MACHINE WAS NOT MEANT FOR FILM WITH SOUND. THE TABS AREN'T MADE FOR IT.
Love that thing .
As you say, the image quality of the transfer looks pretty good, however it seems that there are digital compression artefacts visible. I wonder what the bitrate of the recorded mp4 is? Or what is the output filesize of the mp4 per minute of film?
Hi. I purchased one of these recently and so far I'm pretty pleased. I do have an issue that I would like to know if you would agree with. If I play the video file from the Wolverine Scanner hooked up to a monitor (yellow RCA cable to HDMI converter to monitor) it looks better than if I play the exact same video file played on the same monitor but played from my computer (Display Port to monitor). When the video is played on the computer (using Windows Media Player or VLC) the image looks way over saturated and sharp. When the file is played from the Wolverine the image looks way better. Do you find this to be true as well?
Update: I just turned down the sharpening and saturation in Premiere Pro and the video looks like it does coming out of the Wolverine Pro. Looks way better now!!
Loved this review! Have had my eyes on this since they came out. Ordering it FINALLY. I have 50 years of some pretty amazing footage that I haven't seen since my projector broke. Hope I can use this forum for questions! Wish me luck, everyone, and Happy Trails to all from the Land of Enchantment!
Lascia perdere fa schifo!!
Well, based on your great vid reviews I went ahead and purchased the MovieMaker Pro. I could not be happier with this unit. It's performed very well so far. Thought I'd post a quick review and comments if you don't mind!
The footage coming out of this thing looks fantastic; with very little artifacts or noise. Any noise seen in these or other clips are the result of two things: UA-cam encoding and/or improper workflow and export settings from your editing software of choice. Improper export and encoding settings are the biggest culprit by far...
Some of the more fanatical criticisms are unwarranted for the MovieMaker Pro. These aren't datacine machines costing as much as a small car, and complaining about many aspects of the MMP is like whining that your Honda doesn't have the handling of a Bugati.
It's hard to just walk away from this unit for very long and let it do it's thing. Quite often old film stock will already have some sprocket holes chewed up from years of viewing, and the unit will simply get stuck on a frame. A gentle tug of the film and it's put right again. While eventually it will shut off, I'd rather not let the unit just sit there grinding away.
The tabs on the latest model have changed. Instead of 3 tabs all on the same side of the gate, 2 are now on the opposite side. Seems like a better configuration that keeps the frames more stable..
I always pull the first 1/4" of film past the gate edge. The transition splice from the leader to the film almost always gets hung up on that last bit of gate edge.
Ambient light does NOT affect the scanning. I've blasted the gate area with my iPhone light and unless you put the thing almost directly on the gate light window, there's no change at all.
For rewinding, I like to pull the takeup reel out just a little bit, then do the 'rewind with the help of a pen' move that 12voltvids pioneered, lol. In this way the reel spins around the pin freely - without engaging the gearing. Saves a bit of wear n tear.
The amount of dust and gunk that collects on the felt and gate area is no joke. Get yourself a large Giottos AA1900 Rocket Air Blaster. Also be prepared to carefully clean out the gate side walls with an Xacto or similar. The emulsion residue and other crap will build up. Check those nylon spindles as well. Gunk will build up on those.
Lastly, encoding. If people are using Adobe Premiere Pro or After Effects, there's no reason to do the time stretch trick with your clips in the timeline. I see that method everywhere, and it's a bad way to go - mostly because it's unreliable in terms of how many frames are added and where they are added. Sometimes it works great, many times it doesn't. All you need to do is take your imported clip and interpret the footage. With Super8 you put 18fps in 'conform to frame rate' dialog box. With standard 8mm it's 16fps. This will add duplicate frames in a precise order, then you can export out at 23.976fps. Don't get hung up on the this process. People spend agonizing, PhD quality hours trying to fiddle with the fps (like entering 17.982fps instead of 18 in the interpret dialog because of some very technical reasons). Ignore that crap. It will absolutely not matter with the outcome. Remember, we aren't trying to restore a long lost silent film from Tod Browning here...just getting some great old home movies into the digital age.
Remember, most noise and artifacts are the result of timestretching a clip and/or incorrect fps manipulating.
Hope that helps! Thanks again for the great vids, 12voltvids!
LSZ1318
UA-cam encoding caused the biggest change in quality. I have been using mine commercially to transfer film for clients. Have put though over 300 reels so far no issues and every client has been very happy with the results.
That's awesome. Yeah, the UA-cam encoding is bizarre and very hit or miss. By the way, I wasn't saying that YOU were doing anything wrong. Hope you didn't think that...!
@@LSZ1318 Is there a particular software that can be used that smoothes out the jitters? I speak of the jitters originally during filming due to camera and sometimes just no tripod used?
@@jefffoster3557 i use Adobe After Effects for work, so I naturally had it available for my home movies. That’s may be a bit pricey for most folks but the results are solid. I think they offer a free trial without watermarks so you could check that out. There’s quite a few free (or less expensive) alternatives out there but I’ve never used them. If you try those, I’d just make sure to scan that download/.exe file as thoroughly as possible for adware and such. I think Windows Movie Maker and iMovie for Macs have built in stabilizers. UA-cam also offers this in their editing function!
This looks really nice. I would use my actual movie projector for the rewind as it's super fast.
It takes about 1 minute to rewind by hand just spinning the reel with a pen inserted in the reel hub. Would take longer to switch reels to use the old projector. Even a 400 foot reel can be done in about 2 minutes.
@@12voltvids
Spinning it by hand like you did is the best way.
To hell with waiting for an hour to let it rewind or longer.
Keith Kuhn
A new subscriber
@@KTHKUHNKK
I always rewind by Hand.
Does the film scanner itself stretch the aspect ratio to fake widescreen, or did you do that in video editing? Showing it at 4:3, like your VHS copy, is a lot closer to the correct aspect ratio.
I was wondering the exact same thing.
It comes out 4:3. I'll be honest - the price is right but the compression is troublesome.
hi! great first review. it looks like you did the transfer for this super8 film with switch on 8mm mode, don't you?.
is there an analog output signal which you're using to monitor it? and it includes text on it.
sometime ago there was an internet project where a guy transfered films using a normal photo scanner.. if i'm not wrong, that included the sound track, so throught the scan process they got video and audio.
regards.. very useful info on your channel
I understand that the sensor and the electronic part have not changed in the new version?
I just subscribed good deal Rewind by hand the heck was waiting for that thing do it by way of motor.
This is excellent, I would love to do this with all my original film, which was done via projecting to a screen and videoing it. It was a pain to do.
to rewind my film reels, I use my real to real tape deck. the spools fit the roll and that's it.
I resently bought one, the thing is that the take up reel is mid sized, I use an Elmo Film Projector which has the magnetic tape pick up heads.
I’m a bit concerned this device may scratch the film - Not comfortable that it manually moves film one frame at a time against plastic (the gate), etc. from your experience have you had any issues with this machine scratching the film? Thanks
Thank you for this.
Great to see such a detailed video of this product. The main thing I was wondering... The specs say it outputs a 1080p file at 20fps... Is that frame for frame, so in terms of Super8 shown slightly faster than original footage or does the device duplicate 2 fps in the output file?
The frame rate it saves is 20fps. You can adjust the speed in an editing program if the extra 2 frames per second is too high. You lose 6 seconds per minute of film.
Yeah, that's the thing. Most people have already transferred to DVD years ago. I had a special case though. I once had to clear out the film department of a local high school and send 1300 16 mm films to the dump. As a film buff, that broke my heart. But I retained about 20 or 30 canisters of things I might have liked to have seen, including documentaries I've not seen since and several cartoons. I did once buy a set of 16 mm projectors and their amps and speakers but never got around to doing anything with them. Might be good for a restoration project. Who knows. Anyway, the newer transfer equipment would be ideal for doing the 16mm films at the very least with some really good transfers so long as the films have held up. I don't have much interest in doing this as a business however, so I'd probably just sell the equipment once I was through with it (much as people do with slide and filmstrip scanners once they have finished archiving their material). But if the costs are too high, I'll probably forgo this idea until (if ever) it does become feasible...
Hi, Thank you for the review. We have quite a few 8mm films, many of which are made up of single frame images. My mother attached a 'clicker' which took one image per frame. Would it be possible to use this to view the frames individually on the SD card or the computer?
LYNNETTE MILLER ...Yes Lynnette...it will work for you
Thank you for the rewind tip! You're right....that's a major flaw with this product.
i use a seprate veiwer to rewind. sometimes film is backwards or upside down.
Gostei, meu pai deixou alguns filmes antigos que gostaria de assistir obrigado pela dica. Thank you
Not bad at all. The film grain is well defined so the image is very sharp. Exposure looks good on the exteriors. The interiors look over lit and/ or over exposed when originally shot. Stretching out the 8mm film aspect ratio to 16:9 is not to my taste. I'd rather have the black borders at the sides. However, we know some people like full frame regardless of the distortion. I suppose one could ask the customer for their preference.
I bought one of these because my brother was dying and I wanted to show him films of himself that he hadn't seen in 45 years. Sadly, I did not have enough time, even with fast shipping and converting the films on the day the device arrived.
I'm impressed with the quality of the output of this device. In spite of the fact that I bought the 720P version of the device and rushed the job (as can be seen by the framing and dust on some films) I was amazed by the clarity and colors of the films. For under $300 I think this was a bargain. It allowed me to do something I had put off doing for far too long!
I put the results on my channel so my brother's family could see them. If you want to see what kind of results you can get with what you are likely to find in the back of your closet. Have a look at the raw and rushed results and decide for yourself.
If you think you could build one cheaper and better, why aren't you?
This is exactly what I said. For the money this thing is a bargain. The ones grumbling are those that spent 10X as much for a device that produces very similar results. For me this has been a great investment. I have enough film here to convert for clients that the unit is paid for, and now I can make some money doing it. For someone with plenty of film they are further ahead to buy one them self, and quite frankly most people will be more than happy with the 720 version. I went with the 1080 because I could see large reels of film for clients. I find that -.5 exposure gives excellent results every time.
Awesome!!! :)
Nice machine, I have lots of regular & super 8mm films but the splices are old and done using those KODAK splice tapes.
The quality on this machine is FANTASTIC.
I did my films from a projector projected on a white sheet of paper years ago and it came out lousy with lots of flicker, I hot prices from places and the cheapest was 15 cents a foot and that was 10 years ago, with all the film I have it would cost me about $800...WOW!
Question: Will we see the dentist pull his tooth...LOL
old64goat
You have to watch it to find out. I posted it years ago from the vhs scan. I should repost but I will color correct it first and make it look better than the source as I can fix the green cast from film fading in lost easy enough.
Time to head down to the Sally Ann or Value Village to pick up an old 8mm/Super 8 projector to use as a rewinder! It would sure save a lot of time. I find them all the time where I am for between $5 and $20 complete with working bulbs. The bulbs are what most people are after anyway. Thanks for the review. Will send the link to interested parties i know. I wonder what the manufacturers have in mind for this in the future as improvements could sure be made. Was looking at a book scanner for my rare books collection but the cost is normally prohibitive. There are some cheap alternatives but they also may be quirky or basically still ion development with the buyer acting as a guinea pig to test and possibly iron out the bugs. Home brew is another option but I'm not real good at that sorta thing so a purchased unit is something I'd be interested in...
I have about 10 of them kicking around here.
Thanks!
I have used this machine to copy many old family 8 and super 8 films. I found you need to remain in the room doing other things and listen for jams. The machine does a nice job and faithfully copies your movies. I transferred over to dvd and computer and made copies for family members living in different locations.
It never jams on 50 foot reels. Longer reels may jam if the splice was not done right. Mine very rarely jams. I have had some big reels that have springs that grip the film tightly and cause jitter. Rewind onto a different reel and no problem.
Good video, Thanks!
Is this still the latest technology in 2021? I have one and it's worked as you demonstrate, but it seems kind of primitive...
Just curious if the splices you have trouble with are taped splices or wet (glued) splices? Great review.
In my opinion, taped splices tends to be a problem. Glued workes fine.
Were you able to tweak it to get better image, if so how did you do it?
My Wolverine (just bought) doesn't take 7" Reels like yours does. Where did you get that model from?
Mine is the pro version and it came from B&H photo.
fantastic! an old projector can be used as a rewinder.
I love history of Vancouver cuz I live in Vancouver BC since born
I have another film that my late father inlaw shot when he worked for the Eaton's company back in the 50's and 60's. He did a film showing the operations that went on to get products from the store to the home in the era of catalog shopping. I'll probably scan this one and post it, as it has some nice shots of Vancouver from back in the good old days as people would say. Back when life was a little more laid back, and nobody was in a hurry.
Would love to see that. Its fun trying to recognize the places as compared to today.
I'll put it up once I scan it. I have a copy on VHS now, but I can get a much better scan now, so I will scan it and post it.
i didn't think the quality of it was that bad for its age, celulose film does go strange in time, and it burns too easy.
My dad filmed me as a baby (52 years back) with mum and my brother and sister down the local park.
it was done on super8, expensive in its day.
it was transfered using a projection method then finally saved on vhs. (bad idea).
The original film is lost now, but it was falling apart, every playback it snapped.
I was given a copy on dvd taken from the vhs, not good, the colours were all over that place and the grass was pink, faces were really odd.
I used an old copy of Tmpenc to change all aspects of each frame, it took bloody hours :-(.
The film looked so much better :-D (grass was green, faces were pink ish, hair was correct).
Just for your enlightenment, neither 8mm or 16mm film have ever been inflammable cellulose. From the beginning (1922 for 16mm, 8mm in 1932) these gauges were on acetate safety film, later equally slow-burning polyester. You are probably getting mixed up with the professional 35mm gauge which was mostly cellulose nitrate until circa 1950.
Mine arrived today, and I've been using it for several hours now. One thing I've noticed, is that in some bright scenes, it will dim the exposure a bit, then raise it, then dim it, then raise it....which, at the slow scan speed, creates a rather annoying flicker. It's not a jitter, and the film is not damaged, and plays on projectors and editors just fine. It's definitely being generated by the Wolverine Scanner. This is happening on any scene that's got hot spots..., and it happens on every 8mm film I've tried. It doesn't do this if you're lucky enough to have a perfectly exposed scene, which, let's face it, with 60 year old home movies made by my mom, those perfect scenes are few and far between! This flicker is pretty bad. I will attempt to try the over and under exposure settings, to see if that makes a difference.
Which version did you get standard or pro version.
@@12voltvids Pro model. Only because that's all that's available. 720 or 1080 doesn't matter a whole lot with 8mm movies, and I don't have giant reels of film. Tons of single reels, though.
I also see a lot of compression in the output, but I can live with that, and I'm probably the only family member who would notice it! The exposure flicker may be a deal breaker if I can't get it figured out. It's about every 6 frames in overexposed scenes.
Thanks 12voltvids, unfortunately the 720 version has just left on its way to me. I may get the PRO version and try and sell the 720 when it arrives. I guess the 1080 version gives a far better finished product?
126grey
The 720p version is I believe 1024 x 720 4:3 and the 1080 is 1440x1080 pixels also 4:3 aspect . Will be a little sharper but not as big a difference as going from SD.
I just ordered the Magnasonic unit at 1080p and 20 frames and will post-process in Adobe Premiere Pro. I have been searching for film cleaners like Film Guard or Filmrenew but can't find it locally. What do you use to clean your Super/8mm film? I'm going to have to resort to Isopropyl Alcohol. Good job with the evaluation btw.
I don't clean the film. Don't want to risk damaging it.
Theres Settings in the unit where u can put it on a frame and play with the Crop Settings!
I've heard a bunch of new idioms, thank you! "A month of Sundays", that's something I've never heard))).
It's commn in British English - is it not common in your part of USA?
@@G6JPG It is very common, actually, at least here in Kansas. I first heard it back in grade school in the early sixties.
I’m curious on what the output frame resolution is?
450i
I see you have a variac next to the machine. Do you use that to slow down the speed so the final video is the correct FPS??
No speed correction done in pc. Variac would do nothing. The unit runs on 12 volts dc.
Thx for making this video. Any tips on how to clean film before using this machine? is thee a machine that cleans film automatically?
You can wipe down with mineral oil and then a dry cloth if a film is really bad but I haven't had to do that.
Does this work with 8mm 25ft reels like the ones that were used for home movies? Every projector I get for my 8mm reels the reel itself doesn’t fit on the projectors spindle.
8mm film for cameras came on a 25 foot reel with 16mm wide film. You ran it through the camera, turned it over and shot the other side of the film. When it was processed the film was split down the middle and joined together and sent back on a 50 foot reel. The reel that was sent back will fit on this unit. To use super 8 there is a hub adapter supplied to fit the larger hole on super 8 reels.
It looks like it can also pick up ambient light!
I have the Pro model. The more I look at the output, which is 1080x1440, the more I realize that it is not being scanned/recorded at that resolution, but rather at a much lower resolution and up-rezzed on the fly to 1080. Digital artifacting, like bad aliasing, is quite evident in these files. I wonder if it's the same for the 720p model?
Thanks for the explanation. I have a reel that was digitized by someone else, and it has the same artifacts. I was not impressed.
Thanks for the vid 12voldtvids - have you run into any issues with 7" reels re: pausing during the frame advance while recording (and subsequently recording the same frame multiple times until it finally advances to the next sometimes after 5-6 shots are taken of the stuck frame)? I have been seeing this a lot on the first 7" reel that I have been trying to digitize. I don't think it's an issue with the sprocket holes as they seem fine. According to the Wolverine manual "A work around this issue is to wind the film to the empty reel and scan the film backwards. This way the unit will scan by grabbing on the good side of the sprocket holes then, using a video editing software you can reverse the playback and save the file playing forward". I couldn't understand how to do this as I don't see how the unit can be set to play (or record) the film in reverse.
I haven't run into this problem. I have had splices stick and that is probably what is happening on your one. Splices that were not done correctly or are failing can stick. Generally a large reel will have multiple splices on it.
@@12voltvids thanks for your response. I subsequently found this was occurring on 3" reels as well. After some testing I realized this was only occurring when the film gate was closed. When I have it slightly open the resistance on the film moving through the gate lessens. It appears that the metal channel on the inside top that closes on top of the film is sitting too low and placing pressure on the film. I attempted to tighten the phillips head screws that secure the metal plate but am not having luck getting them to tighten and I'm not able to get proper focus unless the gate is closed.
Make sure the metal gate parts are clean. If some film emulsion or dirt gets on any of he parts the film contacts it can cause it to slip.
@@12voltvids Absolutely, will do. Thank you!
Have you done any with sound? I have some Super 8mm Reels with the magnetic sound strips. The Wolverine doesn't do sound.
Yes I have done sound. Scanned the film on the wolverine and then ran the film through a projector and recorded the sound. Synced up sound and walla sound film on wolverine. Had a conversion order of super 8 sound. Took a little longer but the results were good.
@18:54 Is there any difference in sharpness between medium and high?
The quality isn't the greatest from this device. I think they should have used a better camera and proper rewind, oh and did I say sound?
Even better make one of these where you load a film and hit play and it digitizes in real time and not 2 frames per second.
Great review, but...how did you get past the initial snag with the splice? You said that you started over but that splice is still there, correct?
It stoped at the bad splice, and I had to manually move it past that splice and start it up again. Most splices go through no problem, just ones that people did by sticking a broken film together with scotch tape.
Ah right. Tnx. I was wondering if that were possible if the film snags for you to just manually move things forward a bit and just hit start again - so there's my answer. Really great series of vids on this unit BTW.
Yes it detects the jam and stops to wait for you to manually clear it. Same when the film ends, it stops and writes the file. That way when the files are taken into a computer to be edited they are just cut together like any other clips.
Thanks for the detailed review. Maybe it could incorporate a better camera for better color tone and gamma control, but it looks sharp enough. Next, send results to the PC through some snazzy image processing software to remove grain/sharpen/color correct, etc. I bet software exists that can create intermediate images to smooth frame rate to completely correct speed and preserve sound pitch at the same time. At least it does not flicker! (remember 5 blade shutters used on old telecine equipment?)
FindLiberty
I have 5 blade shutter on my old gear and it works great. I put up a film on my yt channel a few years ago from some 16mm film I had from ww2. Actual combat footage shot by the allies that would have been newsreel footage "castle films" but UA-cam claimed it was too violent. You know because a shot of someone firing an anti aircraft gun in the air might upset someone. Or Germans surrendering with their hands up is too much. Actually it might still be up on the channel but. It showed the quality I could get from that old eiki projector which I still use for 16mm.
Does this support the concept of overscanning? In other words, scanning beyond the frame of the film so that the entire film frame and borders are scanned. I see there is a zoom feature. Can you zoom way out? I would like to overscan and then crop in post production. Thanks.
Yes absolutely. You can zoom way out to see the entire frame beyond the edge so you can see the film Id marks, sprocket hole and portion of frame on either side so it van be cropped on post production. I should do a demo of this feature.
Hi. Great video.
At 11 minutes 50 seconds of your video it looks like a splice went through without catching kin the scanner. I have both ordinary and 'frame line' splicers for repairing film and also one that uses scotch tape to make the join ( not very good) Which do you think would be better to use ?
Splices done correctly have never been an issue. The tape type is find as long as proper splicing tape with the sprocket holes was used with the splicer jig that holds the film in place.
i don't think i've ever seen a sound stripe/track on the leader, neat! TBF a lot of the films i've transferred are missing leaders, 100% amateur and family home movies.
definitely not a fan of zooming/cropping/stretching old films to 16:9 aspect ratio, would rather be able to do full-frame visible transfers, even the sprocket holes if i so choose. I love this stuff regardless tho, reading all the comments here i see you figured out how to get the whole frame properly captured :D
Regular 8mm didn't come with any sound. My father in law was a film buff and made several movies on competition. They would record the sound after the film was shot and edited. The film was sent back to Kodak to have the mag sound added and then they dubbed in all the sound.
This is an old video I know, what is your opinion of the Wolverine Pro today?
Still using it. Many miles of film through it. Take up reel motor burned out. I let the film drop into a box on the floor and wind back out of the box. Produces good results. I scan full frame and crop, color correct and speed correct on the PC afterwords.
Hello👋
I am having trouble with the fifty foot rolls from the 1984’s.🤢
The film goes through the unit for a period of time then gets tight and stuck!!!!!
I think the width of the film is too wide from when it was cut during processing?
The reels are white plastic in a medium blue color round storage case that the reel fits into.
Maybe a brand of processing problem?
I will not be able to digitize!!
A few reels went though fine and then I hit the problem about six reels into the done earliest date to later date!
Maybe I switched processing labs?
One half of the fifty foot should go through because one half should be slightly narrower than the slightly too wide half????? HOPE SO??
Any ideas?
Roger 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢
Sometimes a film doesn't seem to be aligned correctly and I don't see anyway to adjust anything physically. I can tell almost immediately, because it sounds louder and wrong while running. It can also completely throw off my frame adjustment very soon after starting and causes jumpiness in the final video. Any ideas?
Don't use the take up spool. Scan and drop film i to s box. Much better results.
I think your video here was one that convinced me to buy the Wolverine Pro back in 2019. I've had a lot of fun with it but discovered that the quality of the film scanned has a big influence on the Wolverine output. Also my machine seems to create far more "noise" than yours. Even my best quality 8mm films scan with so much "noise" I have to de-noise the digitized scan through software or the final scan is unusable. So, maybe these machines differ? So far I've scanned almost 2000 feet of double and Super 8 film. It's been fun and I'm glad I purchased the Wolverine but I sure wish there was something better that's reasonably priced. Thanks for doing your video.
The next one up in quality is 5 digits. I know someone with such a system. 6000 for the 8mm gate, 6000 for the super 8 6000 for the 16mm. He had 8mm super 8, 9, 16, 18, 24, 36 and 72mm film gates. Needless to say this is his business. 5k film scanning. I maintain his vcrs for him. His setup was over 100k so he charges accordingly. Mostly work for government and media companies archiving old film footage (hence the oddball obsolete film size gates)
My trick on the wolverine is to not use the take up reel. I let the film drop into a box and reel up after. I also scan full frame with the edge showing through and then crop on the computer after scanning. Much better results. Takes a little longer but results worth it. Recently did a film from the 1930s. Black and white nitrite cellulose film. Owner was most grateful that I was able to get such good quality from an old film. Saw long dead relatives farming using a horse drawn plow.
Do you run into the auto-white balance putting a blue tint on the footage randomly? I seem to be getting this on every reel I digitize.
No if t he film is good it looks great. Unfortunately many old films are color shifting usually to magenta as the yellow dye is fading.
@@12voltvids If I may, most films fading to magenta are suffering from the loss of the other colours, cyan and yellow. Some photographs fade to cyan as a loss of magenta and yellow.
Im pretty impressed.Ive got about 60 rolls from the 40s to the-80s.Ive have been looking on ebay and the one I have seen are advertised as new... but physically seem to be different..Particullarly where the film slides thru.Also the woman doing the evaluation says it 720 but I thought u mentioned 1080 or something? Can u tell me anything about this? But certainly seems a great machine
126grey
There is a less expensive model that is 720. The smaller version only accepts 5" reels as well. The pro version I have is 1080 and accepts the larger reels.
I have one these and it really needs a firmware hack with proper adjustments. It turns anything slightly orange into an over saturated yellow and gives me an overly compressed mp4 file. I'd like to have some sort of white balance adjustment and RAW output.
I have not had an issue with any color films I have run through my unit. I use my commercially and have run though about 800 reels now, and it has worked well, including some new stock negative film, which was inverted on the computer to get a positive image from the negative film stock.
Did you save that movie as an SD file? Did I see that correct? And is it even more slow if you would save to HD? Ooh it was HD? Just heared you say that in the video. :D
Jeroen De Jong
It only saves in one format 1440 x 1080p 4:3 aspect ratio. It scans at 2 frames per second but the resulting files play at the correct speed.
Moving the film slowly puts less stress on old brittle film. I have been quite busy with it. Just did 15 reels for a client and he is bringing me 37 more after seeing the quality and pictures of his grandfather whom died before he was born. Pay no attention to the trolls and naysayers in here. This unit delivers very good quality and I will make my money back quickly on this investment. Sure there are more expensive and faster scanners that may deliver a slightly better quality on properly exposed professionally shot film done in a studio environment, but these are home movies we are talking, done with bad lighting, the wrong filter on the camera and half of them are not focused properly. For hOme movies there will be no preceivable difference between this machine and one costing 10 x as much because the film is not good to begin with. It sure as hell looks better that shooting it off a screen which was the old way to do it.
Does the wolverine scanner record the sound as well?
No, for sound films the sound has to be recorded separately using a sound projector and then the 2 can be synced in the computer. I have done it. Results were very good, but it is time consuming.
Have you ever worked on any actual frame to frame projectors with sound like the ones made by Bell and Howell from the 70s?
I have an Eiki 16mm telecine projector (5 blade shutter) with sound and a Kodak 8mm sound unit.
I used them in an optical conversion system back in the 80's and 90's.
@@12voltvids Cool! Have you ever had to do any repairs on these old machines before? I remember from helping my teachers back when I was in school that some of these projectors used a separate lamp for the soundtrack.
@@Truckguy1970
Yes they use an exciter lamp for optical sound. I have replaced belts on mine, and of course the projection bulb.
@@12voltvids I've replaced many of those bulbs, they're getting hard to find now. I never did any work on the mechanical parts though because some of them need special alignment fixtures
The companies need to design a Super 8 / Standard 8 mm converter that plays the film at normal speed, with sound as well, but which scans it like this one. So you get a well defined picture with sound as well. To do it frame by frame like that is sheer madness.
You can get one. 100,000.00
I think you did a great job.
I have a 400 foot reel of some 1965 Las Vegas stuff I don't care about sound or music or anything in it I just want to get it transferred to DVD I probably will be contacting you soon.
Keith Kuhn
I can do it no problem.
@@12voltvids
I live in Ohio I forgot what state you said you were from ?
@@12voltvids
I really do think the footage looks good the end product
How do you re-set the film counter?
You don't. That is how they determine the warranty. It just increases by 1 every time. Rename the files afterwords.
that stained wood doorway at the end is great. I am 100 percent sure a lazy landlord painted over it by now..
I'm convinced that you could build a similar device for about a third of the price, but with a sturdier gate, better camera, larger screen, and auto-winding without needing to swap the reels.
I hate to sound like that guy who always says "Rasp Pi", but... Rasp Pi. lol
You can even get the small camera modules for the Pi that plug in directly, and with a bit of Python script, you could add the menu stuff, and even allow it to send the frames or video clip to a PC via WiFi / Ether.
It's not such a bad device though. It looks like it does the job, and the quality looks fine for the size of the film.
ElectronAsh
I have a challenge for you. Build me one for 1/3 the price and I will buy it from you.
haha - I thought you'd say that. :p
I completely see why people buy them, as it's still not THAT expensive, and hey, somebody at least makes 'em.
It just seems like they could have improved it with some minor changes, like faster rewind motors, slightly less flimsy looking gate etc., even at it's current price point.
It is still a possible venture for an open-source project maybe. I would have a go at it if I had any spare money atm. (most of which has being spent on other electronics projects).
@@electronash As this currently seems like it is (after 3 years and counting) the best mass market device for this type of thing, the market is WIDE OPEN for an improved version. I'd guess that they'd sell well at even twice the asking price.
That really shows up the compression articafts on the Wolverine compared with your other transfer.
Well the punch in was from a VHS tape copy made by shooting the screen. There is no detail in it. Also this was done with the default settings on wolvering, before it was dialed in.
When I edited the video, I had originally shot the demo footage in 1080i and just dragged in the 1080p footage from the wolverine. It was then rendered out in 1080i and youtube converted it back to 1080p.
Here is what the wolverine is capable of, again edited in premier, but with the wolverine properly dialed in, and the proper settings applied to the editing software. It is actually very good. I could do a comparison to these same films that were put on VHS about 30 years ago, and you won't think the VHS copy looks better now.
ua-cam.com/video/8hAZ2khyhXU/v-deo.html
Yes but the dashcam used in the Wolverine has much too high compression and isn't very good. Many people on the Super 8 forum are involved with changing the sensor and the software/control gear to get a really good transfer.
@@brianfretwell3886 its good enough for anything I will ever need it for. Done many transfers for clients and they are all happy and that is all that matters. I don't shoot new film. These are all ancient films most are in pretty bad shape to begin with.
The worse shape they are in the worse the effects of over compression. Kodachrome properly exposed with no damage would be the best under exposure or 160 Ektachrome looks really bad.
Great video thanks, audio is a problem though. Is there a machine that does both?
No, as to get audio the film needs to play on real time. A professional telecine can do this but they charge 1000 per hour to scan on a professional unit. You can do it with a projector and camera but the quality is not as good. I have a few examples of film done with a camera. With a good projector with a proper 3-2 pull down shutter 5 blade for 24 frame film speed (I have such a unit that was pulled from a tv station) will deliver almost flawless results but 8mm used a 4 blade shutter and ran at 16 frames for 8 and 18 for super 8. This resulted in flicker. Many would slow the film to 15 frames to reduce the flicker but that changed the pitch of sound, or for super 8 speed up to 20 frames as these are multiples of 60 fields. Again a problem with sound film.
The way to do it with the wolverine you need a sound projector to get the sound off and then sync on the computer during post processing which you really need to do to crop and correct film speed.
@@12voltvids thank you
I have a film that is shedding, but wouldnt send it through the mail its so fragile.. end of the film is shedding.. I'd be looking for the peices later.. Is the transfer image sharp..
Yes it is very sharp.
If the sproket holes are damaged, it however will not scan the film as it uses a cog to advance the film.
The VHS-segment 22:12 looks alot better, but obviously it's not as sharp compared to the newer digitization.
AAAZ2A
The clip takes from the vhs was also done on an rca tk21 telecine in a tv station. I took that film and projector into the TV station I worked at back in 1982.
Hey awesome video! This one helped me the most I think. So I am in he Public Affairs shop for the NM Air Guard. We have, I'd say MILES of film we need to digitize before we lose it all to enemy of time. I know Adobe Creative Cloud well, would you say with this machine that we could get these old reels looking (and sounding) pretty good with a little post digitized editing? I am trying to justify the case that we would save a TON of money for us to get one or even 3 of these, over send everything we have out to be done, then most companies throw the reel footage away after. I am big on historical value of things, so I am trying to find a way to keep them for our NM National Guard Museum in Santa Fe.
Thanks!
Remember this is only for 8mm and super 8 film and it only scans silent film. If you have a sound film you will have to play it in a projector and record the sound separately and sync it in Adobe. I have a sound superior called men and those magnificent flying machines. It was excepts from the movie that 20 century Fox release for home movie night on super 8. A 5 minute edit of the feature. I scanned it with the wolverine and took the sound from a projector. It looked fantastic. I posted it to my "test" channel that is totally independent from my main channel. Uploaded from a different computer on a different internet connection. (public WiFi) and it was instantly hit with copyright strike by fox and taken down. It would have been great if I could have left that up to demonstrate the quality of a 24 frame film as most home film was shot 18 frames. But even though this film was done in 1965 and nobody in this film is likely still alive they still took it down. The original film is over 2 hours and the home super 8 release is a clip of the air race and 5 minutes but they still canned it.
12voltvids so... any chance you could send it to me directly? Or if you put it on your channel as private, UA-cam won’t take it down, then you can send the web address to those who ask about it and they can view it after your permission is given. My brother did that with a compilation he made about my dad after his death. That way we can have it in a media formate but the songs he used won’t get tagged under copyright junk
@@radryan505
I can put it up on Dropbox and share the link. That way you can see how it looks.
12voltvids that would be awesome! Please do! I’m very interested in seeing ot
What SD card did you use? My copy is coming out very grainy. I have changed shapness, and other adjustment. Nothing is different. The picture looks good as it is copying but when I put it on my computer it isn't very good.
I just use a Transcend 16 GB class 10 UHS 1 card.
It supports up to 32 Gb.
Is there a way to keep the original 4:3 aspect ratio?
It does capture in 4x3, my editing software stretched it out because I was editing in wide screen as my camera footage was in wide screen, and it sets itself based on the first clip imported I could have changed it, but then my camera footage would have been all squashed and un-natural looking.
It's un-natural looking, now!
The Wolverine captures video at 1440 x 1080 pixels with pixel ratio being 1.33333. Using Vegas Movie Studio as editor, I simply changed the clip property to square pixels (1.0). Gave me just the right aspect.
You are using them MM100-PRO (the more costly unit), Does it perform better than the MM100
I have not compared it to the cheaper one, but from the specs the cheaper unit is only 720P and this one 1080.
The aspect ratio is off it stretched the image into 16:9 wonder you could probably bring it back to 4:3 by cropping the image In a video editor then if your okay with losing some image you could then zoom it in to fit a 16:9 ratio but then it would at least look right and not stretched.
I would just find an old projector for use in rewinding the film.
I have a manual "editor" you know the magnifier type that has gear driven spindles, so it will rewind reels very quickly and that is what I will be using. Not this joke of a rewind
Hi, whats about sound, how you do to retreive the original sound, if any, from the film footage?
Sound is done using a sound projector to record the sound and then it is synced in computer
Thanks!
How do they convert digital footage to film?
Ive seen some digitally shot commercials in theaters through projectors
Movie theatres haven't run film in years. Digital projection these days.
@@12voltvids Thats true and I know there are online services you send your digital 24fps footage to for conversion, but what's the process. Shooting with a camera? I dont see any other way, since celluloid will need to get exposed through the lens
@@DethronerX you mean to print to film? Yes basically they use a digital film printer to print out to film. Typically a DLP chip that is protecting onto a film plane the film is brought into the expose plane and the. The DLP fires off the red green and blue LEDs that flash the frame to the film stock, the film advances and the next frame is done ext. Prior to that they did what was called a cine scope. A film camera shooting a CRT monitor.
@@12voltvids wow, good info, thanks.
Okay, the reason to ask was, to get the real film look and the motion blur of the actual shutter and having lost some digital detail and sharpness to get the actual film colors and shadows, but dont you think you can only get it if you shoot with a film camera and then develop the film or do you think the new method will do the same?
Eitherway, its worth a try. Its stupid I know, to get a digital video converted to film and then back to digital to get that real look : D
Might as well just shoot directly on film, but I mean if one was not able to re-shoot something old.
Thanks again! Ill just buy one of those affordable film cameras.
@@DethronerX film look seriously. All those effects can be created in digital to look exactly like some film no need to go to film to do it some directors namely Quentin Tarantino and a couple others will shoot their Source shots on film and then transfer to digital for editing they do this for one reason because of the dynamics that the original negative can give they can be over or underexposed and pushed the film. Film is too expensive unless you have millions of dollars and a big Hollywood budget you're just throwing money away I had a client that brought me 300 ft of color negative super 8 that he recently shot because he wanted to experiment with film 300 ft that is 18 minutes running time silent he was telling me that 18 minutes of film was over $400 to buy and process. Even his black and white films which he brought me $350 foot reels were about $25 per 3 minutes for black and white the color he couldn't even project because they don't process reversal film anymore all they process is negative so in order to project that color film he would have had to make a positive transfer of the film cost the same as he paid for the negative so to get an 18 minute film processed that he could project on a 8 mm projector about $800.
What about the audio??
Super8 had the ability to have audio too and this is not transferred with this method. How would you do that in the best manner possible after you have the video transferred? You mentioned the sound projector but I don't have one, not even sure what this is
You have to do audio using a projector to play it and sync in pc as I had to do with the 8mm sound films my father in law made. This only does picture and is quite slow.
My unit broke down last night. Take up motor burned out. Now the film drops into a box on the floor as it plays and had to be rewound out of the box. (Sounds worse than it is)
it loos like an new scanner
Just keep your film editor handy for the rewinding side of it lots easier. I thought the grain on this device was extremely bad maybe UA-cam couldn't pick up on it high-end quality but I wasn't impressed with the sample shown
First my editing software stretched the 4x3 picture to 16x9, and it has been recompressed 3 times. The initial MP4, the edit where I synced the sound as this was a sound film and the sound had to be processed separately. Also it was shot at 16fps so speed had to be adjusted and then rendered out. Then it was rendered out again for the clips in this video and the. UA-cam compresses it again. I have a sample uploaded directly from the unit and it looks better but still not as good as the source file off the scanner which looks great.
The picture quality is actually better on the VHS version. My cousin had a film digitized using this, and it has the same digital artifacts, vs the "cleaner" VHS version.
Its not. VHS doesn't have the resolution to show the film grain. Also the version on this one was not processed.
Here is the link to the entire film that was processed.
ua-cam.com/video/aqa_x14JOOU/v-deo.html
Be ready to change belts. I think they use old stock ones in there units. They go to gum in no time. That thing a few years ago was like $150.00 I fig they pulled them off market after so many just were junk.
I will be doing a tear down video on this unit next, so we will see how well it is built. A few years ago it wasn't 150, it was 2500.00 as I looked at one when they first hit the market.
No high speed dubbing here but priceless playback
I got a similar one but it doesn't have an audio converter option - How can I transfer the audio? do I need a different machine? if so do u recommend any? thx :)
The audio was taken ff using a projector and manually synced up on the computer. That's the only way to do it with these machines as they scan single frame. 2 frames per second.
The sound is so distorted that it iterates listening to it.
Oh, you have a webpage? Nice! Next thing you'll be getting 12voltvids branded coffee mugs and t-shirts! I would so buy one of those. Where is your webpage?
Thanks for the info. Too much money for the end results. With the cheaper way to go but using a good Eumig projector you can reduce the flicker problem by adjusting the speed slightly. Next, be very particular about every step through the procedure. I hear so many people talking about deteriorating film quality yet I have regular 8 shot in 1963 that still looks like the day it came back from Kodak. Remember we are talking Kodachrome quality...the best !!....
And once you have your digitised copy use a good editing application and you can really improve your original film a great deal with editing and even adding sound. Good luck to all !!