Review of the Eyesen Super8 8mm Film Scanner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- Looking for a modern way to get those old movie reels transferred to video? The Eyesen Movie Maker Pro could be an option for you. Hopefully this video will help you decide if dropping around $300 or so is worth the investment vs. sending it to a transfer service.
Check out the Eyeson on Amazon:
amzn.to/3evC0ER
Music from the UA-cam Audio Library: This is Not a Ballad - True Cuckoo
Film footage courtesy of eBay.
Here's the specs:
Film Type: 3”and 5” Super 8/8mm reels
Recording File Format: MP4
External Memory Card: SD memory card up to 32GB (max)
TV Out Type: NTSC/PAL
Display: 2.4” Color LCD Display
Exposure Control: Automatic/Manual (-2.0 EV ~ + 2.0 EV)
Resolution: 1080P
Frame rate: 30 frames
Scan Quality: 3.5 Megapixels
Scan Method: Video Recording
Scan Speed: 2 frames per second
Follow me on Facebook:
/ 1databits
Twitter:
/ digitalbt or @digitalbt
Patreon:
/ databits
digitnow.com/products/digitno...
A HUGE thank you to my super loyal Patreon patrons:
Tim Tom
Scott Walker
Daniel Marsh
Dan Barrett
Greg
Dylan Olah
Matthew Kajcienski
Grover NZ
Jackson Nieforth
Dan Barlow Jr.
Mark Reed
SilentS
Yaniv
TKB
Heads up: This description contains an affiliate link. If you buy something through one of the links, you won't pay a penny more, but databits will get a small commission, which helps support this channel. Thank you! - Наука та технологія
FYI: 8mm film scanners like this show up on auction sites quite often, but make sure you are getting a model with 1080p resolution and not the older 720p models. I've seen these sell for under $50. There are at least 4 brand names for these, but they are essentially the same machine. If you have a variable speed 8mm projector and 1080p or higher resolution video camera (not a phone) and set up a film recording system using either a quality screen or one of the better mirror box devices you can get a good digital recording equal to one of these frame by frame machines, and much faster process. As much as we love watching old 8mm films, it is best to get them captured to digital video for long term preservation and ease of viewing compared to using a projector. Same goes for slides and photographs and VHS/Beta tapes.Thanks for this video. 👍👍
Bought one of these last year and it was one of the best purchases I've made. Quality was great and I've scanned hours of old 8mm with it. Worth the money if you have lots of old 8mm. The only criticism is that it sometimes produced flickering results if the sprocket holes in the film were worn or there was a bad splice.
Nice device, but the quality is quite miserable. Either UA-cam heavily compressed it, or they as always used some crappy webcam modules to capture the image. It's possible to get a crisp 720-1080p quality footage out of Super8 film.
Have to disagree. You can only reach 720p level with super-fine-grain low-sensitivity negative films like the 50D. Everything else delivers worse resolution. And 1080p is completely out of question.
This has got me thinking professional grade machines of this kind are almost for sure still being made, and I'd like to see one of them in action.
The video looks compressed. It should give the option to make every frame a high quality still image and turn into a video file using software later on.
Yup, we've asked the manufacturer if this was possible via a firmware upgrade. Their answer was: this isn't a pro scanner so frame-by-frame still picture saving will never be offered.
I used to transfer 8 and super 8 home movies on a telecine that was basically a projector with a mirror so you could record the gate. This looks a thousand times better and I’m sure a lot cheaper than having a company like the one I worked at do it for you.
I was very surprised at the quality of the footage. It looks really good considering the unit that produced it. The machine itself looks like a cheap, Chinese piece of garbage. I did not for one moment think that the video was going to look as good as it did. Not sure if I'd spend $300 on it though. Like I said, it seems pretty chincy despite the decent footage that it produced. I don't know, this is a tough one. I'd definitely need to look at what other kinds of units like this are on the market. Thanks for the video.
Oh hey, look who's being casually racist here.
Compared to what the quality could be, it is about right price. A lot of digitizing artifacts in the end result.
Scanning frame-by-frame is pretty clever - it's how the pros do it. Transfer looks good; wish I had this in 1992 when transferring 8mm to S-VHS...
I do this kind of work professionally and what I noticed outside the painfully slow scanning process is the video has a lot of video compression noise. The image sensor is not very high quality combined with the high amount of compression delivers a mediocre product. You get what you pay for. I know these scanners are pretty cheap relative to what professional scanners sell for so don't expect the best at this price point.
@z Good film scanners can get expensive. If you're only doing home movies Retro Scan makes a decent scanner for about $6K. You may be able to find one used for less. It's got a good camera but not a great one. It can scan 8mm and 16mm film up to 1080p HD. Which is good enough for home movies. The camera is limited to 2K resolution and its sensor wasn't up to the quality we need since we're doing film restoration work. Currently we're using a Film Fabriek HDS+ scanner that has a very good 4K resolution camera and is capable of scanning 4K uncompressed video. Which is what we need when doing stabilization, dust and scratch removal and color grading when restoring faded and damaged 16mm films. That scanner sells for $40K. For both scanners you'll need a computer to control the scanner and capture the video. And yes, they get even more expensive if you get into the high-end 35mm scanners.
Good video, thank you. I expected this would be called a telecine machine but scanner is a better term for it. Anyhow it seems to do a fine job, and that sample footage looked amazing, especially the colour. I guess the film was kept in good conditions.
I have owned this type of machine for about a year and have digitized about 2,000 foot of 8mm and Super 8 movie film with it. I found that running the scanned files through enhancement software was necessary in order to obtain usable files. The scans of my mostly 1960's movies came out with a lot of photographic "noise." Apart from photo editing software, I found the scanner useless. Combining the two made for an enjoyable experience. I've had a lot of fun with my scanner producing edited home movies for our family.
I purchased one of these exact models from Amazon (no longer available from them) last March for $200.00. I transferred 76 ea. 50' rolls of Super 8 film taken in the early to mid-seventies. Only one reel ever snagged--twice--and the other 75 reels went through this machine without a hitch. Quality was much better than I expected; after I retimed and color corrected the digitized footage in FCPX, I'd grade it as a solid "B."
My own opinion? That test footage looked like really mishandled low bitrate video. The compression really mangled the grain structure of the film images so I would very much hesitate to use it on anything I wanted to transfer and archive.
I do wonder if I could perhaps get one of these to get the mechanism and light path. And just rip out the built in camera and circuitry so I could replace it with a decent camera and a Raspberry Pi to get a decent version that can spit out TIFFs or CDNG or something similar.
Sure, it would be a lot of work. But I suspect the movement in this scanner is decent enough. It pulls down a single frame at a time and if you run a PiPowered frankenversion at high enough resolution you can capture the whole film width and both crop and stabilize gate weave in post.
Would be cool to have a 16mm version of this. I've been looking for a 16mm transfer solution and there's nothing consumer-grade out there.
If you're handy, look up the Gugusse Roller.
@@thescanmangallery I actually started trying to print the parts for one last weekend, haha. Have to print some of the parts in halves though as my 3D printer's a bit smaller than what these were designed for.
Very nice
I bought a Wolverine scanner when they first came out and it works similar to this one but with a lower resolution. The issues I ran into were bad transport problems when the film had bad splices and considerably wrong frame rates. This one appears to be better at the resolution and frame rate issues. They work similarly. I was so unhappy with my unit that I built a multi-format (8mm-35mm) 4K film scanner to replace it. I'd never go back. I agree the price is too high for the construction of these units. And it's hard to tell, but it looks a little jumpy. Converting a pre-made film would give a better indication.
Great review, I bought one after seeing this.
Took a while to find the tabs, thanks for the clear video showing this.
The footage mine produces is nowhere near as in-focus as yours, but I can't see any way of adjusting it, manually or via menu options - is there a way I'm missing?
Also, was the footage you've shown after post-processing or straight from the unit?
Thanks! Richard
I don’t recall there being a way to adjust focus on this. It could be yours has a calibration problem from the factory. The footage I showed was straight from the unit. Happy, capturing, and thanks for watching!
@@databits Thanks for the quick reply. I've seen some similar (Wolverine) units being modified to allow the lens on the 'webcam' camera to be twisted to get better focus, but that seems a bit extreme on a new unit! All it needs is the feed moving very slightly closer to the camera by the look of it, or the camera slightly closer, because if I manually lift the film slightly then filmed text becomes sharp.
Mine also 'jumps' slightly, i.e. if I leave the width zoomed out then I can see the top-of-frame moving up and down slightly between frames. I've looked for software to compensate for this (sort of 'anti-shake') but can't find anything which works to make it as stable as the footage you got straight from the unit.
I'll have a play with the 8mm vs super8 slider as you did, and see if that helps it grip the film.
Thanks again for the reply!
so we just got this unit today, and the right side reel does not spin while recording, leaving someone to manually have to sit there and spin it thru the entire process. Thoughts anyone?
that is pretty impressive results for a machine of that quality. does it do audio as well or just the film?
no audio
the quality was quite good
Awesome content as usual! Mini USB? Really?
What about an AGFA GEVAERT Viewer and just point a digital camera at the screen can also take snaps using the matching camera
Cool video! If you captured audio with an old projector, does not seem like you would have to spend very much time editing for scenes like this where no one is directly addressing the camera. About 10 years ago, I did a video comparing the "project on a wall to a camcorder" approach to a professional scanning service, and this device definitely beats the wall capture approach in terms of quality, not to mention you can let it run and walk away... Nice!
In the scanned footage of the barbecue and kids playing with the ball, there's a microphone on the wall. It would be fun to know what that mic was picking up. Something was captured but due to the technology, quite likely lost to us now.
Seeing the mic in the frame kinda makes that loss sting just a bit. Maybe better to not see a mic and therefore not think about what is missing.
Anyways regarding the footage, it looks a bit digitized in the UA-cam video. Is that digitized look a result of youtube algorithm or is it present in the actual mp4?
Thanks!
WB looks OK, but the compresion seems to be very high. What's the bitrate an resolution of the file?
Great video very well explained - does this machine do 7" reels? thanks
Yes
@@databits Thank you!! :)
So the color quality is not bad and the fact that the device can work independently of the computer is great and like the Video out, but the resolution could really be better.
I would say this is a device that you buy used online and then sell again after you used it...
Walmart sells these, just sayin'
You could use it for your transfers then eBay it. They go for a decent price. Like a rental.
Looks like something from the early 2000's but produces good results for home use
Looks like good quality. Interesting foreign home movies.... I am thinking from Serbia.
Not Serbia. There's a company name in English at the pool and palm trees near the dusty football field. The people don't look serbian either. My guess is that the footage is from Cyprus or Greece.
@@BlaBla-pf8mf Uh, almost certainly this is just a central European family living in the US.
as it not doing sound part, the converter film, is it recorded in away it would still, be in sink ,with films original audio, e.g. is new copy 1 to 1 copy of the film, like 10 minute, is still 10 minutes when copied not 9 or 11 minutes?
what
The quality looks decent although I see a LOT of compression artifacts, also the edges look artificially enhanced.
Yup, that's one of the main problems of this scanner.
This is a nice little machine that will work well for home movie transfer but I wouldn't buy one for a commercial business operation! For that you would really need something more beefy. However, this is perfectly good for that box of home movies that never gets seen by anybody! The quality is reasonably good but there are a few proviso's to be aware of. Any film splice's may get stuck in the gate and need to be moved on manually, so edited spliced films are best supervised! Also the tooth film gear can split through some of the film perforations which is annoying. If the films are old with editing splices they could break and then a splicing tool would be handy to have. Second hand $5 -$10. On the whole it is a great little machine and there are various makes available but they are all basically the same machine. Worth getting one for sure if you want to run those old home movies on a TV or computer. 🎬
Im having a problem where the display is showing the image properly, but when I watch the SD card either in display or on PC the footage rolls up and down. I can record fine on some super 8 and others it rolls........ Any suggestions?
Excelent picture quality. It's just a pitty it's so expensive and does'nt do sound.
Recording the sound from a projector then addimg it later comes with a whole host of problems. The playback speed of the projector would have to match perfectly with the MP4 playback speed. Then you have to line up the audio and video in editing software.
Yup, it's indeed a PITA. I've done this a lot (see my channel, it's full of Std and Super 8 scans, the latter sometimes also having audio) and have always had problems with synching in post.
What inexpensive movie editing windows software would you recommend?
Download a copy of Windows Essentials 2012 from archive dot org. It comes with Windows Movie Maker.
@@databitsthanks!
I bought one of these and it has peoblems. It makes loud clicking noises and I have found that there is no support or warranty if you don't buy from Amazon. So I am out of pocket $500.00 AUS. Is there any one who might be able to tell me where to get parts and support.
I put in an inquiry with my contact at the company to see what options you might have.
The manufacturer gave me an email address to contact them with your issue. If you can message me through Facebook on my Facebook page, I can give you that email address. If I post it here it will just get blocked.
I would have really thought they just run the film continuously past a linear scanner strip and let software do the rest.
And the sound?
These budget scanners do not record sound. That would have to be a professional transfer.
The quality of the samples is quite bad. I have used a projection box with a projector and a camera with proper white balance and a hotspot removal filter and obtained much better results. The problem is projectors are very hard to find anymore. Does it give you any options to record as still images or video with lossless compression?
You didn’t mention the frame rate. Is it 20 fps like the others?
I put the specs in the description. The manufacturer reports 30 frames per second.
@@databits That will be the MP4 output frame rate. The film will be 18fps but similar scanning units process at 20fps - so the film is running a little fast.
@@gold27b I got the Wolverine model, it scans at the same fps. The files play back fine. +2fps isn't noticeable.
@@tonyv3000 Yes, for silent only it is fine But if you have sound which you want to combine on an editing program, it means slowing the pictures down. Just something to be aware of.
@@gold27b Standard 8mm (and Silent 16mm) were more commonly at 16fps, so 20 is pretty high. I've had some 8mm film look better at 14fps because of the camera it was shot on running slow.
I wonder how Walmart (who sells something like this,) deals with the inevitable RETURNS. Do you think there are people that would use this for one-time usecases (like converting a dozen old family reels,) AND, then returning it a week later for a full refund?
Yes, through Amazon also. These machines keep a "use" count, so if you buy new or used, check the count to help you determine if you got a slightly or well-used unit!
Qué tarjeta de memoria necesita???
SD
Specs say 3" and 5" reels, but box lid says up to 9"?
Also: specs say both 1080p and 3.5 megapixels - ?!?
Thanks for the review though.
Contrast and colour looked good but has a very unpleasant 90's-jpeg type compression artifact. No mention of the frame rate issue which is a dealbreaker already. These units are super basic unbranded tat, and should only cost $50 or so - build cost is probably around $20.
For 300$ it seems okay but 8mm film has much better quality than what this produces if a proper scanner is used. This could look very much like 1080p video.
VERY rarely will you find 8mm films that have better resolution.
I would have considered buying it...if it was about $50.
Economies of scale. This is not something that will sell more than a few thousand units, and the costs of designing a type of machine we can call rare, even if not particularly high quality, cannot be overlooked.
Does the eyesen will scanned super 8 sound film?
No, only silent
There's no reason that it should not scan 8mm sound film -- but it will not pick up the sound, only the image.
I would love one of these. Would you like to sell the free unit?
Hi David. Already sold it on ebay. So sorry! Thanks for asking though!
@@databits Got one. Does the SD card fit in you computer? Mine does not fit in three computers. Just a little to wide. It hangs on splices for me at first, then let it run. Lets see
All these type scanners are made by the same company I bet. they range from 300 to 500 in price. Probably good for just the family stuff. Anything more you'd need to look at $1000 gear.
These scanners start new at under $250, depending on the name and if marketed as 720p or 1080p.
3rd?
3:39 a *used* sd card
Why would that not scan sound? That kind of makes this thing obsolete and not necessary.
@@kilwala2242 - And, most home movies and those early movie cameras did not have sound capabilities. The common household movie maker back then was just happy to have a home movie camera at all. I'm 71 and know that from experience.
Sorry, Mack, but I've done very carefully focused transfers of projected Super 8 off a white wall that looked better than your transfer from the Eyesen. The result you got has a rough "digital" "crumbly" quality which is inferior to the richer tones and smoother more solid textures of the image I achieved from my admittedly more "crude" set-up. Until they come up with something better, I'm sticking to my old projector method. Nice try though!
Insufficient.