This Super 8 and 8mm Film Scanner Kinda SUCKS, BUT...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2022
- smoosh SUBSCREEB please:
ua-cam.com/users/sweetlouphotogra...
Join my discord here: / discord
PO Box:
Sweet Lou Photography
PO Box 4353
Danbury CT, 06810-4353
Stuff I use to make my videos:
**Full disclosure, these are affiliate links or codes, I do benefit from you using them**
Color Grading with Dehancer: www.dehancer.com/ (Use Code SWEETLOU for 10% off)
Royalty Free Music: uppbeat.io/?ps=sweetlou
Check out the scanner here (not an affiliate link)
www.amazon.com/Digital-MovieM...
digitnow.com/products/digitno...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW ME:
SpaceHey: spacehey.com/sweetlouphotography
MySpace: myspace.com/sweetlouphotography
Instagram: @SweetLouPhotography
Follow Horseman: @ohshititshorseman
Twitter: / sweetlou89
Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2GMb0oQ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
memes
• I get it. It aint maki...
• Look at him and tell m...
• Lemongrab - Unacceptab...
• ATHF Dancing is forbidden - Навчання та стиль
Color negative film has an orange layer added. It has to do with correcting an imbalance in the dye layers during processing. If you simply scan a color negative, then invert the colors, you get that blue cast. Areas that should be black will be dark blue, because the negative is orange where it would be clear if negative film were simply the natural colors of the scene, inverted. But it isn't.
The reason the pro scan looks natural is because the scanner is set to compensate for this. If you scan your negative with a home unit, then invert the colors snd expect it to look correct, it won't work. Not the fault of the scanner! It was only intended for scanning reversal film.
I tried several approaches to scanning my dad's Super 8 film (20 hours down, 20 hours to go). Projecting onto 11"x17" white cardstock with a variable-speed projector from eBay ($50) and capturing with a miniDV standard definition video camera worked best. (A projector screen was too low contrast; a light capture box with frosted glass was too bright in the middle and too dark on the edges). A machine like this clipped off the edges, blew out the colors, had too many compression artifacts, and, worst of all, had about half the resolution of my standard definition miniDV camcorder. I don't mean resolution like "how many pixels in the final file", I mean resolution like "how much detail can I see in the movie." Side-by-side, a frame captured via cardstock + miniDV was at least twice as sharp as the blocky, over-compressed frame from one of these scanners. That is a shame, because capturing a frame at a time should theoretically be a much better approach. However, the implementation of every consumer-level machine produces lame images per frame, which result in a lame video. Bummer.
Out of curiosity, why did you chose to capture with a MiniDV camcorder instead of a newer HD camcorder? Is there something about the MiniDV format that produces better results with projections of this kind?
I used a miniDV camcorder because it could pass the footage via firewire live into iMovie HD on an older Mac laptop. Also, the DV format is really handy to work with because each frame is independently compressed into a fixed-size block of bytes. This makes it so that I can go into iMovie and trim out the junk, put titles on each clip to indicate when & what it is, and then run a little utility I made to copy the frames for each segment into its own .dv file with a name taken from the iMovie xml project file, all without any recompression. The image quality seems as good at standard definition as it is in HD, given how it is being captured.
That all being said, I can tell the image quality I'm ending up with is only half what it should be if captured properly. But I haven't found a solution under $1000 that is better. The machines that scan frame by frame are all of such low quality that they're even worse than what I am ending up with, even though in theory that should be a much better approach. I wish someone would offer one of those with better optics--or with a way to mount your iPhone or DSLR to take the pictures of the frames.
Perhaps someday I'll re-scan all of these when there's a better solution available. In the mean time, this will let everyone see what's on the movies and get some enjoyment out of them, and will serve as an index for that future day to know which films are worth bothering with.
I did something similar in the '90's. I projected on a white wall and used a Hi8 camera, only as a camera, and recorded onto VHS. It's the best I could do at the time for free.
A couple of years ago I brought some reels into a shop that transfers these things to DVD. I got the DVD home and was shocked by how bad it looked. I was able to compare my old VHS recordings to the DVD of the same films by switching inputs on my TV as they ran simultaneously. There was no question the VHS recording looked better. The transfer place was cool, they gave me a refund.
I want to try again with a better final format. Good to know your experience as I was considering getting a Wolverine unit.
@@DavianSinner Since my comment above, I had my Super8 films scanned with a company using the Lasergraphics scanner. The results are wow. I then denoise a bit with the Neat filter, did some minor color correction in Resolve. I am so happy I went this route and not the Wolverine/Reels route. At $0.50/foot, my six 50 foot reels cost $150 (USD), which is about $25 per reel scanned at 4K. For priceless footage that opens a portal to the past, this is well worth it. If I had 100 Super8 films, then maybe I would get a Wolverine to see what's on every reel, and then send the most precious reels for scanning on a Lasergraphics.
The Wolverine popup after powerup does only tell you that the software on the controler board is from Wolverine. The mechanics will be similar but corners could be cut to obtain a lower price.
I have a Wolverene Pro scanner I am happy with. It has 1080 I just wish it transferred the sound from Super 8mmfilms too,. But I have on the most part been happy with its results.
I love Straight 8 and Super 8 did a lot of it in the 70s thru the 80s, but have yet to find a cheap scanning option!!! I wanna digitize my past and may try some in the future if the cost works into my budget!!! Yes, I was at the 1964 Worlds Fair as a kid!!!
That is so rad!! There are likely cheaper options out there, but if you're not into the whole DIY thing, this could be a good option (especially if you're primarily doing color positive film!!) If you end up digitzing some, I'd love to see it. Cheers!!
Picked one of these up for 249.99 and at that price it's worth it to me. I'm the kind of person who'd rather mess around with something like this then send stuff off to a lab, or post house to scan. If you're just looking for the best quality scan though you should send your stuff out.
I wonder if scanning color negative as positive film and then reversing the colors in post would yield any better results...
I completely forgot to mention I did try that as well! If you go that route, you need to chop everything up (or use a scene edit detection) because it seems like the scanner re-evaluates white balance constantly, so you can't just do a sort of 'one and done' color correction.
I bought one of these a month ago, worked fine for 2 weeks. Then after a 2 week hiatus, it kept insisting the card was protected. Somehow, when you inserted the car, it would slide the locking tab back. I could not see anything that was causing it. I exchanged it for another, and now the new one seems to be out of sync somehow, like the sprockets are pulling it back half a frame every so often. I'll try another few spools just in case, but I'm losing faith in this machine and may buy the $400 kodack
Bro, low key, your videos slap. You've got a good sense of humor and you deliver useful information. I fux widdit.
I've owned one of these for a couple years now and have digitalized thousands of feet of 8 and super 8 film. Coupled with my enhancement software it does a very good job for online sharing. On it's own it's junk. I remove all the noise and adjust the contrast, etc., and end up with a very nice video.
I used one I found it noisy and I found the speed a bit fast had to slow it down a bit and make some minor color corrections
I know it's time consuming, but would it pay to get a better copy if you could clean to film of dust before copying it? Then ideas how anyone?
Thanks for your worthwhile tips on the scanner. I dont think grandpappy's Regular 8mm, gave the scanner a fair test however, other features are a bother such as a fixed 20fps. I shot much of my Regular 8 at 24 fps and all my super 8 at 24fps. Perhaps Premiere could fix the problem. No sound would mean lifting it off with a projctor and recording onto a synchronised 1/4" tape and dubing back in the computer. Does anyone care to comment with some suggestions, and then, what scanner to buy? 😢
I've done a lot of 8 & Super 8 film with the Wolverine MovieMaker Pro scanner and with a little help from PowerDirector 14 I get scans that look great online. I never get anything like the terrible scans you show here. I very seldom shoot film today due to the cost. Even if one develops one's own film and scans it (good equipment is expensive)....the cost of 50 foot of color Super 8 is ridiculous and even double 8 Foma Fomapan R100 Black & White Reversal Film is like $30. I like film but few people do. Videos of home movies old or new are pretty much ignored online. It's a fun nostalgic hobby.
I decided to go with a projector from eBay and a Lumix G9 with macro lense. I'm then modifying the drive to use a stepper motor to make it a frame at a time advance, shutter release, and now I can have all the custom colour settings I like. Still a work in progress but at least all the mechanics are metal and made for the job.
would be cool if they'd make these to also be a film projector, so it could have more use when it's not scanning.
It can be used as a projector, see 8:46
@@SweetLouPhotography not sure how I missed that!. but now I'm curious... could that AV out offer a better scan if played into an RCA converter into a computer. :D
@@knoptop --- Did you ever find an answer to your question, that seems like an obvious choice at the very least, but I see nobody talking about it.
@@NorthTonawanda1 Not yet, I' may need to track down a unit and try it myself
@@knoptop --- If it were in any way a superior method then I'm sure it would just be designed that way. Frame by Frame is probably the way to go for a reason.
I just ordered one off of amazon for 209 + tax (there was a $20 coupon.) I added up the footage of the 9 reels I have and it's like 2000 feet. At 20 cents a foot (Walmart pricing,) Owning this is half the price of a one-off. If it doesn't cut the mustard, Amazon has a generous refund policy.
Nice sprocket holes.
That 2007 cellphone video quality footage isn't a solid option for preserving memories. If they're going to be scanned once for posterity, they deserve better than this Christmas cracker image quality.
You say (at 5:27 - took me ages to find it again!) "the scans are mp4 at 1920 by 1440". Could you expand on that a little? Everyone else says 1080p, including the selling page shot you show at 0:25. (I know some of the earlier machines were 720p.)
I went for the Kodak Reels (not Reelz, apparently that was the first gen)... probably from same factory. With current prices plus being in Europe ... that went up to 500€. The control buttons are better and there are more of them, the manual was made by a human, and it takes large reels... however the takeup reel mechanism is pants, every now and then the film stutters (some point to the SD card formatting, some to the film transport mechanism, still investigating myself). What is irritating beyond belief is that automatic color and exposure adjustments on which you barely have a grasp and it is linked to how much you zoom in or out (digital of course, not optical). Been disassembling it to look at mechanics, electronics and camera. Would like to fix some issues and maybe use it as a base to make something better but not too expensive... grandpa (or dad in my case) was indeed no Hitchcock 😁 ... but at 2km of film to digitize still cheaper than sending it to a scanning company
I wonder if scanning a color negative as positive and just inverting yourself in post would give you better results
I completely forgot to mention I did try that as well! If you go that route, you need to chop everything up (or use a scene edit detection) because it seems like the scanner re-evaluates white balance constantly, so you can't just do a sort of 'one and done' color correction.
@@SweetLouPhotography oh yuck. That sounds so incredibly self-sabotaging. You almost could make it useful.
Damn, that scanner produces a lot of compression artifacts
How does this machine respond to film that has many splices in it that are over 40+ years old ??
I've got the Wolverine Pro and it all depends on how good the splice is. If its a poorly done Slice with the Splice tape you can expect it to get stuck at the splice and you have to stop it and just move the film over the splice, or you may get lucky and it may just make the Image jump for a frame , but keep going. It is the main reason you have to stay with it and watch it. Apart from that I have done like 300 Films and its ok. Cleaning the gate an screen is constant thing to do too
@@Allan- And blow off those dust spots. You can digitally remove them but avoid the hassle.
I wonder if you got a dud or something? The color shift on the negative scans just seem way past anything that I'd hope any company would claim as acceptable. Weird.
Seeing how bad this is, I think I'm better off modifying an old projector and using some Telecine software. Or for that price, simply build the Kinograph project.
Yeah, if you are into the DIY stuff, there are surely other routes you can go!
I’ve always wanted to shoot super 8!
You gotta!! It's so fun. Definitely not cheap though
yo Dwayne's photos develop and scan super 8 for $22 for every 50 feet
OHHH have you tried the one from Kodak? Or is this it? They look so similar.
I have not tried the Kodak film scanner, but I do know this particular model makes its way around the web under numerous different names. If we lived closer I'd happily let you try it out lol. If you wanna mail me a reel or two of yours, I'll scan it for you lol
I bought a new Wolverine from Amazon, it was nothing but junk! I scanned two 50' reels and had to constantly "help" the receiver reel before it would scan... If I stopped helping, it would stop scanning. So disgusting.
Hey does buying one of these machines eliminate film processing??? Can you put film you just shot in it?
Nope, you'd need to get it processed first. You would use this to scan already developed film
holy shit. the nonstop jokes. stop.
This type of scanner SUCKS.
Thanks for that well-considered comment.
@@pebey comes from experience using the scanners compared to real scanners. Thanks for the compliment.
You are talking too quickly old chap I know you are American but you can still try......Now start from the beginning again and first explain explain to the audience the type of equipment you are using