I did end up buying the Wolverine Pro and now have some of our old home movies online. I discovered that the better the original film, the better the scan. But most footage required software processing. After scanning I ran the digitized film file through PowerDirector 14. It was a simple two-step process of adjusting the speed and checking the box for "noise reduction" (default setting). This produced video that ranged from pretty grainy to actually pretty good. Thanks again for your review.
I thought the final results looked very similar from both machines. I’ve been looking for a way to transfer some family video from my childhood. Thanks for the great info!
Great video. I have the Pro machine and was very impressed with it. I am a hobbyist and dabble in everything from Regular 8mm, Super 8mm, and 16mm. This little machine allows me to scan stuff without always paying someone else to do it. If it is something important, I can always have the film cleaned and professionally scanned--the film is your archive. Your results show that Super8mm can be a viable medium. The problem we see with a lot of 8mm projects is the camera work. It is EXTREMELY important to learn to hold that camera steady or to use a tripod. Take longer takes. Don't pan too fast. Dealing with a small frame size magnifies these issues. I noted that the camera work was pretty decent on the samples you showed. Also, sunlight and good indoor lighting with proper exposure is important. Interestingly, I reached out to Wolverine about bringing out a 16mm version. They said they are looking at that and to check back in a year. I am excited about that. 16mm is more expensive, but I shot some stuff at the Botanical Gardens with a pretty beat-up Canon Scoopic and it looked like something out of a television show, very impressive. I would like to do more 16mm, and a 16mm Wolverine for less than $600 would be something affordable, and would pay for itself in the cost of several transfers of 16mm.
Thanks so much! I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with everything you said about scanning stuff yourself. It's quite expensive for pro scans these days (though, they're there when you need a scan like that). And, the Wolverine pro does a respectable job, especially for seeing and enjoying hobbyist work (like you and I). You're dead on about the filming tips also. these simple techniques should be a part of a beginner class to motion picture film (maybe they already are). The biggest issues I always see are fast zooms, pans and tilts. They're almost never necessary. Love to see Wolverine come out with a 16mm version. Last I "heard" was that they weren't interested but your conversation gives us hope. There is certainly a hole in the market, with the Wolverine Pro at $400 and the RetroScan Mark II at $9,000. I do love my Retroscan Mark I unit, but not sure I'll ever be able to save enough to upgrade. Thanks again!
Thanks for the excellent side-by-side comparison of the older and newer machine. I do see a slight difference in favour of the 1080p. Image contrast is a bit exagerated, but overall, the images are pleasant, and I think the machine is good for home use in view of the price. But, really, why don't they provide a non compressed (or only slightly compressed) output option that can then be processed with any movie processing software, and in the end compressed with a decent codec, applying quality settings as required? That would enable to overcome the dreadful compression algorithm they use, which litterally ruins some scenes...
Thank you Filmboy. I have 8mm -Super 8mm with sound movies. Back in the early 70's I added a sound strip to my parents and aunts 8mm films and then added audio to them. My father spliced most movies to 7" reels which were to big for the original Wolverine, so I had to cut them and put on 5". My take up reel started making a lot of noise, and that was annoying. A few months later they came out with the 1080 version, after I sent copies to everyone still alive. My 8mm movies go back to 1952. I was going to buy the pro machine one of these days, and re-do them. But after seeing your comparison, I was disappointed in not seeing much difference except in some highlights. Other than changing the speed, and adding music, I don't want to tweak with the video settings when editing.
My pleasure. You certainly won't see much of a difference in quality if you do them all again with the pro unit. It's nice to hear that all of those old memories are now digitized, great job!
Sorry I didn't look at them for a while. Just did and they are 7. After your review I am thinking about splitting them into 5. There are only two. I was a videographer before I retired and videotaped the shows of our churches amateur theater group for twenty years. I have the Premier Pro 6 and Encore. These two reels are mine that I did once before with Moviestuff and a camera on to SVHS. You know how that looks. This is a do over. I did do some reels when I subcontracted for a camera shop with an upgraded Moviestuff that went into the computer. I have also converted VHS to DVD using the usb on my svcr. I transferred PAL video NTSC. I do a lot of investigating when I start something new. That's why I watched videos. I found yours to be the most informative and best instructions. Thank you for getting back to me.
I’m just starting a new hobby of digitising 8mm and Super 8 film, I’ve tried the point at the projector screen method of filming with not fantastic results, looks like these film scanners are the way to go. Ordered a 1020 version after watching this video.
I'm on my 42nd reel now and I've learned a lot. 1) My best results are when I put the film scanner on the edge of the desk and allow all the film to be pulled up from about chair level. I.E. I spool out the film in to a box and let the film advance mechanism pull the film up from the chair to desk height - 20 inches or so. This is particularly important if you have a 400+ ft reel 2) I've learned that if the machine is clicking loudly or inconsistently as the film advances, the results will be rubbish. 3) the right hand take-up spool mechanism is too strong. The key thing I have found is to allow the film advance mechanism to do its own thing and not have a force on either side. Some people just let the film fall in to another box so that the pulling force on the right side of the scanner is consistent. (Because the take-up spool mechanism force changes as more and more film is scanned and wound on.) My technique is a bit different to the box-on-the-floor idea - what I do is put the take-up reel on the rotating axle but I don't click it on fully. As the take-up axle rotates it drags the reel round just enough to wind the film without jerking it. Important: I still loop the film round the four pegs on the right side. To stop the take-up reel actually falling off (because it's barely attached) I tip the scanner back about 10 degrees. The reel rotates just enough to spool up the film that's been scanned. 4) Expect to baby it along constantly. Splices can get hung up and you just have to pull them through. (Try not to press start/stop - every time you do you're going to get a new file on the SD card.) 5) You *have to* scan to the SD card - the manual implies you can scan to the PC but this is not true. 6) timing is easy - it scans at 2 frames a second which is about 1/10 of normal speed so a 20 minute film is going to take 3 hours 20 minutes to scan - so be patient. It will be about 1.5GByte is size. The quality, as people mention, is much dependent on the MP4 compression which is awful. It might be possible to hack the raw video stream prior to it going into the on-board video processor but I haven't looked into that. The files will be huge but memory is cheap now.
Wow, thanks for sharing all of this great information!! I haven't used either of my Wolverine units in a long time, since switching to the MovieStuff RetroScan but your information is very much appreciated. Thank you again!!
I saw a video showing to NOT zoom with the Wolverine and do the crop later in post editing. This makes a huge difference. The video with the digital zoom of the converter is riddled with compression artifacts. The video with no zoom is virtually artifact free.
Kodak apparently licensed the Wolverine unit at some point. I found a used Kodak one on Amazon marketplace. It was very similar to the Wolverine with a few design differences. I had nothing but trouble with it and had to babysit the film the whole time. It would get hung up often, which would result in frame doubling or tripling (which was a nightmare to edit out in Premiere). I spent a weekend duping my wife's family's home movies, and after about 20 reels the SD slot went bad. Once that happened, the machine refused to capture anything because it wouldn't recognize the card (I tried several different ones to make sure it wasn't the card). I sent it back for a refund. The quality of the films I scanned was good enough for home movies, but I'm not really satisfied. My in-laws loved them though, so that's what matters. I finished the rest of them by running them through a projector into a box with a ground glass and 45-degree mirror, which I had my Nikon pointed at on the side with a macro lens. Still not great, but way easier to match the sound which I was able to capture directly from the projector to my computer. It was quite the setup 😂
You said it best though...your in-laws loved it! I think it's so important that we try and preserve as many of these old films as possible and you did what you had to do to get that done...Bravo!!
Thanks for the report: good description of the two machines. I couldn't really tell much difference between thw two - like Patrick below, I thought the 1080p was slightly clearer - but that's with them reduced to fit side-by-side, plus whatever UA-cam does to uploads; to really show, you'd have to zoom in a lot, and probably show slow or stopped. As he says (as have many others), the best solution would be access to individual frames, or a no (or at least low) compression option, but it seems the manufacturer (who I think is Winait, for Wolverine, Reflecta, and other makers - maybe for Kodak too?) is not interested in pursuing that.
Thank you for watching! I honestly think the difference between these 2 machines is extremely negligible. I no longer use either, as I've moved on to higher end frame by frame machines, but I always have them, just in case :)
Has anyone investigated hacking the 720p unit to record at a higher res or with better compression quality? It's exactly the same camera/scanner in both units.
Thank you for doing the comparison between both I bought the 7:20 allow back to transfer it and I was really bummed when I found out they had a 1080p but the difference is not really worth the price buy another one so you rock
good comparison there - thank you. KODAK POLAVISION - we have a couple of super & std8 films - and some polavision. Polavision appears to have the same super track, have used a splice frame to compare hole positioning etc, so wandering if you have tried polavision tapes, i have carefully extracted my reels - just trying to work on a machine to play them now.
Thanks, Andrew!! I have not personally had any Polavision but I am familiar with it. It was very short lived but a pretty cool concept. You shot the cartridge of film (40') in a special camera and the film was developed inside it's cartridge, automatically. You then popped the cartridge into their proprietary viewer and could instantly watch your film. Neat idea that just never really caught on, likely due to the 'new' video tape cameras. It is the same as super 8 film, so once it's out of the cartridge, you should be able to transfer or project it (though I've never tried).
Hi. Great Video. To tell the truth, I didn't see a great deal of difference in the final outputs. Regards the smaller reels on the first machine I guess I could rig up something using my old 8mm editing/ viewing equipment. Thanks.
Thank you, Robert! You're right, I've seen very little difference between the two. I've seen people rig up things just as you described to allow for larger reels. Best of luck!!
Thank you. Very helpful! I was deciding whether to upgrade to the PRO because I found a few old reels of 7” 8mm film that I can’t convert on the original Wolverine MovieMaker. Good to know that even though the Pro version can accommodate 7”, it’s not designed well for the weight of those size reels.
I just came across this review and I'm intrigued. My mom has a bunch of old home movies (most likely the 8mm/Super 8 but not quite sure) that I have been wanting to digitize for many years but is very expensive. You mentioned that the first Wolverine machine did not transfer sound. Does the second "pro" machine do sound or are they both silent movies? If neither do sound, do you have any other machines you can recommend that would do sound?
Unfortunately, neither of these Wolverine machines handle sound film. Sound striped film is a bit tricky these days but there are companies that will do it for you. I'm not aware of any affordable DIY options/scanners that will do both. I now use a MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner and while they also manufacture a sound module unit, I do not currently own one. One of my subscribers does however, and once told me that he would do some work for others. If you're interested in talking to him, he's in the comments section of my RetroScan review video here: ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html If you scroll down the comments to "Greg Oliver", you'll see our conversation on this very topic. He's a nice guy and is "retired and bored" :)
What happens when a bad splice appears? Does the machine shut itself off or does it get clogged up somewhere? I'd hate to have to sit and watch the unit to make sure it doesn't happen.
Hi Gary, good question. Unfortunately, these machines are very hit & miss and really must be monitored. I've had splices go through with no problem and I've also had them get hung up. They usually get hung up in the "rollers", not the gate area. Also, bad or torn sprocket holes will also stutter the machines, right at the gate.
I watched to the end. Thank you very much. I plan to convert my parents and grandparents 8mm films. I am will try to find a used pro to purchase first.
Thanks, Michael!! Unfortunately, in order to get a lot better quality, the machines get quite a bit more expensive. There have been a few pretty decent DIY machines built over the years for pretty cheap but that can be tricky too.
@@Filmboy24 Mike, Thanks for that reply. I had the same question of was there a step up from the Wolverine Pro but not as steep cost of the MovieStuff RetroScan? Looks like Wolverine Pro is it? I've got family 8mm (Super8 I think) with sound that I want to DIY before I meet my maker. :)
Thanks for this ! ive been looking to upgrade to 1080 from 720 - having viewed the samples the PRO 1080 looks a little flatter. Do you feel the image is better or contains more data? - I have Vegas to color-correct.
Great review. I might have liked to see how it performed with 7 inch reels since you mentioned that the weight of those reels could be an issue. Thank you.
Your samples at the end needed cropping, so would you do that in the editing software? Would you than scale it? What did the final look like? Would it be better to scan it like you samples and fix it post? What is your export settings in editing. My goal --> scan films --> post to UA-cam.
That is a great question John and one that took some figuring out and some realizations. The issue is with the rendering of two or more different media types. In this case, a video file (me talking) and a film movie file. When I start a project that will incorporate those 2 file types, I usually set my project properties (in editing software) to match my video file (me talking). This is set at 30 fps and 1920x1080. The film clearly has differing specs, but since most of the video is my ugly mug, I start there. The render is then usually a "blended frame" and same output size of 1920x1080, which produces what you see on my finished video. The way I do my "Super 8 Sunday" clips is completely different (see my latest posted video for an example: ua-cam.com/video/JFOQAaD7GVE/v-deo.html For this, I import into my timeline at the same specs as the source file (in this case, my super 8 film). My render is then done at the correct frame size, which for my 2K renders is 2048x1536 and the correct frame rate of usually either 18 or 24. I hope this helps!
The 1080p seems brighter. I wonder if I can just adjust the brightness myself later with an editor. 720 currently goes for $289 and the 1080 is $399. I’m not sure the pro is worth the extra $110. I can’t tell from here, but is the sharpness and detail much different?
Honestly, there really is so little difference between the 2 machines. If you're not planning on scanning reels larger than 5", you'd probably be just fine with the 720P unit for sharing home movies. There are some adjustments that can be made during scanning but you can also do a lot of it in post.
Very well done. I am preparing to purchase a converter , maybe the new Kodak unit, or the Wolverine Pro model. I do want to add the audio, and I have not found any of these units that offer that ability. I am sure there is one out there, but it probably cost an arm and a leg. So, I am asking if you have an answer for adding the sound that is on the tapes?
Thank you, Richard!! Transferring audio can be a difficult proposition outside of owning an expensive unit. It's easy to extract the audio (any sound projector and digital recorder) but difficult to align it properly to match the images. I do a lot of it now but I do it the hard way. Here's a video I posted where I show my technique: ua-cam.com/video/AQz5jMGzCNg/v-deo.html I now use the MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner and will hopefully be picking up their sound module this year. That would make transferring audio a breeze.
@@Filmboy24 Thank you for your quick reply, and great demo of your technique for adding sound track. I was thinking of using my projector, and adding a microphone next to the projector so that I could then add the analog copied sound from the film to the digital video copy.
@@graywolf1911, will you be using a separate audio recorder, with a mic plugged into it, pointed at the projector's speaker? In theory that should work ok but you're likely to pick up a lot of ambient sounds as well, namely the sound of the projector. If your recorder has a microphone "in" jack, use a cable to go from there to the headphone jack of your projector. If it has one, turn your audio recorder's input levels down to 0 and the volume on your projector to around 1 or 2 (very low). I have found this to work best. If you don't have a microphone jack, pointing the microphone at the projector speaker might be sufficient. Best of luck!
@@Filmboy24 I do not have a separate line out on my Anscovision model 688 projector. So, I will try making a sound cage for the projector to muffle the noise as best as I can.
So the Pro unit converts Full HD 1080p Video at 20 fps. The quality is very good; the difference between 720p and 1080p is noticable. When cleaning up in FCPX, it appears we need to do the following: 1) convert from 20 fps to standard 23.98 fps 2) convert from widescreen 1440 x 1080 .... exactly what ratio for standard 4:3?
@@northridgewood5918 If your scan is at 20 FPS (as it would be with the 1080P unit), and you shot the film at 24 FPS, you would need to increase the speed by 20% to reach 24 FPS. I use Vegas Pro, where I can simply change the playback rate, in this case to 1.2.
Using the Pro machine and pretty happy with it. I have suddenly gotten the urge to film in Super 8 again. Is there something wrong with me!? BTW, hair looks great.
What is the bit rate of the MP4 files? I wish they had an HDMI / SDI output on the back so you can record with an external recorder. Thanks for the deep dive into these little units.
Hi Michael, that's a great question. Coincidentally, I still have both of the original files created for this video. The 720P file gave me 8215 Kbps (8.2 Mbps) and the 1080P Pro file gave me 9846 Kbps (9.85 Mbps). Hope that helps!!
I have a bunch of super 8 film with sound. Is there any machine that will transfer video and sound to digital out there. What we would you recommend? Great video. Thanks
Thank you! Unfortunately, there's very few sound film options in the "reasonable" price range as it relates to purchasing the machine and doing it yourself. Not sure where you're located but there are a few companies that can do it. I can also do it, as I now use the MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner along with the RetroSync module for audio. I transfer 50' reels with audio for $12 each. I then export each film as an .mp4 file and upload them to Google Drive for the customer to download. Let me know if this is something that interests you. My email address is filmboy24@gmail.com
I just purchased the pro model and I hope it will become a way for me to earn some money.I am actually scanning a 600 foot reel, and I am taking the sound of them using an old Elmo Projector, although the provided take up reel is to short and a larger one has to be bought, many times the focus fails come from the original camera operator
Best of luck to you, Alejandro! Not much you can do about focus issues from the original film camera operator. Just explain to them that there are always going to be issues with old, amateur movie films. I've tried several times to extract audio via a projector but can never get rid of the "whirring" sound of the projector. I've used the speaker and line/aux out ports. Let me know how yours turns out.
Filmboy24, with my 720p model, I transferred some Super 8mm and imported into Final Cut. Got some doubled frames all throughout the timeline. If the Wolverine 720p model outputs 30fps, I'm guessing I just need to make sure my Final Cut project is 30fps and that should clear things. I wondered, have you ever gotten doubled or tripled frames with the Wolverine MP4's imported into your editing software?
Yes, you will get duplicate frames for sure, depending on your timeline settings. If your project settings don't match your film's fps, the software will typically "resample" or duplicate frames. I use Vegas Pro and I always let the software match my source file, prior to importing the media. If I'm editing a 30 FPS video file (like me babbling on) and I also add a 24 FPS film to show in the same video (timeline), I manually disable resampling for the film clip. The 30 FPS timeline duplicates some film frames and creates a "ghosting" effect. Disabling resample alleviates this problem. I hope you can make some sense of all my ramblings :)
@@Filmboy24I've tried with a FCP project set at 30fps, but still many doubled frames. Maybe there is no correct project fps setting to avoid them. I've spent time trying to manually delete doubled frames, but I don't want to do that.
@@13lake, hmmmm, I'm perplexed. I'm not versed at all in FCP, as I've never once used it. Seems like it has to be something due to resampling of frames or pulldown. Might be a FCP discussion on this particular issue somewhere. Best of luck!!
Both of them have unacceptable amounts of Gate Weave but the Pro was better. It also didn't have as much yellow tinge in the highlights. Obviously your MovieStuff Retroscan grossly outperformed these units, but it's disappointing the Wolverine can properly register each frame steadily. It weaves and bobs along virtually every axis, X, Y, and even Z.
One thought I had looking at these was what improvement could be made by scanning a film at say -3 exposure, then redoing it at 0 and +3 and blending every frame as a high dynamic range image? It’d be 3x as long per capture (assuming it can’t be done on hardware) and alignment might be an issue, but is this something that anyone does or any value in scanning at different exposures? Any insight you can offer is much appreciated along same goes for your viewers!
I see what you are saying, however I don't believe the scanner would replicate the same frame the exact same way each time. I feel like when you lay the frames back over each other, it'd be nothing but ghosting, as these little machines are just not precise enough. In theory, it should work, but I think in practice it would be a disaster (though I'm no authority). Love the way you're thinking though...outside the box!
if the scanner just had a lift, gain, and gamma control this could be avoided by having you bend the image to fit the DR in the recording. that or a log gamma option.
I think I'm sold on the Pro model. It's not a professional unit but on the other hand it's not thousands of dollars. I see it as nice for computer viewing and online sharing.
hello. excellent video!! really enjoy your sense of humor too. i have a broken 57” sony rear projection tv, i was thinking of taking the back off and projecting my 8mm projector onto the back of the tv screen and using my dslr to record from the front. do you know of anyone using this method and if so how did the results come out. cheers, the Rabbit. =:3
Is there a more commercial unit you can recommend? I do a lot of video transfer and slides/negative transfer and would like to add 8mm movie transfer. Besides, I have a lot of 8mm reels of my own. Thank you for a nice and clear evaluation of the Wolverine units.
That's a great question, and I get it quite often. In my honest opinion, the next step, though considerably pricier than these Wolverine units, is the MovieStuff RetroScan. I now own one (the Mark I unit) and it's given me results and speed beyond my wildest imagination. MovieStuff now only builds their RetroScan Mark 2 unit but I was able to pick mine up as a used unit on Ebay for under $4K. One just sold on Ebay for $2,500 but it only had the 1080P camera (though 2K can be added). If you haven't seen it, here's the video I did on my RetroScan Mark I unit: ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html
@@Filmboy24 Thanks! I did find your other video after posting my question. Looks good, although as you admit, pricey. Am on the Moviestuff website now thanks to your video.
Unfortunately, no, there are very few that capture sound also, unless you either pay for a higher end transfer or use a projector type telecine transfer.
Filmboy24 Thanks so much for the demo, I just bought this machine, could you please let me now how you got it down to 18 fps?, I mean were you able to set that up on the wolverine itself or did you use an editing program for post prod. corrections? Thank u!!!
That's a good question. Film is actually analog, not digital, so it's inherently not SD or HD, meaning it has no pixel resolution. It doesn't turn into SD or HD until it's scanned and the key is to pull as much information from each frame possible.
In all honesty, Gary, the difference between the 2 scanned formats is pretty negligible. True, super 8 is a slightly wider image but 8mm was so much steadier running through the camera. Super 8 was essentially a convenience film for the home movie market, as it was pretty failsafe to use.
Hard to tell if it's the youtube limitations or the unit's but it looks like the bandwidth is low on both of those units with compression artifacts clearly visible during motion in frame. I think I'll wait until the next generation of products comes along. I would prefer something with at least 10Mbs bit rate to eliminate all those artifacts.
I honestly don't blame you at all. While I do believe that these machines are fine for what they are, they do generate a lot of artifacts due to their highly compressed .mp4 output.
@@Filmboy24 Is there any chance you can tell me what the data rate of that .mp4 file is? If you right click on the file and select "properties" and then the "details" tab, it will show the data rate. Just curious. I'm just guessing it's well under 5Mbs. I find it sad that there is a huge gap in the marketplace for these scanners where you go from the Wolverine 1080p pro for a few hundred dollars to the Moviestuff Retroscan Universal for $9000 and there is literally nothing in-between. I'd be willing to shell out close to $1000 for an upgraded version of the 1080p pro that could encode at 10Mbs or better, eliminating the compression artifacts, but I just cant justify spending $300 on something that "noisy".
@@niknikktm, absolutely, the 1080P output shows a data rate of 9846 kbps and the 720P unit shows 8215 kbps. I've never tried one personally, but have you looked at the Reflecta super 8 scanner by Pacific Image? I know it's a very slow machine (even slower than these Wolverine units) but I believe it outputs single images. Again, I've never used one, just seen a few videos of them, but I know they were in that price range ($800-ish). They don't do regular 8mm though.
@@Filmboy24 Thanks for that info! I'm astonished the data rate is that high. I guess the film grain must be raising holy hell with it then to produce so many compression artifacts. I regularly rip 1080p blu ray discs (for an institutional movie channel) at 10Mbs and they look great with little presence of compression artifacts. It must be the film grain creating havoc as all of that grain registers as motion. I now recall ripping "12 Angry Men" (the 1957 version) and the data rate was very high due to the film grain. It makes sense now. Makes me wonder just what type of data rate you would need to reproduce the grain accurately? A professionally authored Blu-ray disc is capable of 25Mbs and assuming the original scan was at least that, you can see that even at that data rate, the grain still looks a little unnatural but it doesn't look like typical compression artifacts. Technology needs to catch up on these budget units. I have seen some info on the Reflecta scanner and it looks decent but it's inability to scan regular 8mm film is a big drawback for me as I have both types that need scanning. Btw, great job on these videos. I find them very informative. I especially liked the one on the Moviestuff Retroscan unit you bought used. It really does have me now considering trying to find a used one. I really like the ability to create uncompressed files for archival purposes. That's elitist level stuff there.
@@niknikktm I wholeheartedly agree that technology needs to catch up, and I'm guessing there's other factors involved that lend to the artifacts. I have to wonder about things like lens and sensor size on these tiny little, cheaply made machines. Couple those factors with something you mentioned earlier, rendering from NLE and uploading to UA-cam, I feel like the tiny image doesn't stand a chance. I also appreciate your kind words about my videos, thanks!!
when are they gonna make a 16? And yeah the 1080 makes a huge difference in faces. 28:50 ... of course id study those frames :). her eyes are so much cleaner
Great demo and review!! I've been looking into getting one of these machines for years. Am I understanding correctly that MovieStuff Retroscan Universal is like an $8,000 machine and the Pro Wolverine is like $350? It's crazy that there isn't anything in between.
Thanks Joe! Yes, you are very close on the pricing. I had wished for years that there was an option in between as well. I ended up just saving and saving and eventually (about a year ago) bought a used Retroscan Universal Mark I unit online for about half the original price. I upgraded to their 2K camera and I really love the results. I will be uploading a complete video, breaking this machine down on Wednesday if you're interested.
I did some research of finding a super 8 film scanner and bought a Wolverine movie maker pro. I will let u know how it goes. I do have a question, where can u buy a more professional scanner?
Hey Ronald, best of luck with your Wolverine Pro, they’re not bad little machines. I now use a MovieStuff Retroscan Universal Mark I scanner. I’ve had it for a couple years now and really like it. I just ordered their newest model, the Mark II unit, which should be here in a couple months. They make great scanners but they are considerably more expensive than the Wolverine units (but much cheaper than the high end units). You can check out their website at Moviestuff.tv
Thank you! The pro model is simply called the Wolverine "MovieMaker Pro". You can see all of the specs and order info right on their website. Here's the direct link to the Pro: www.wolverinedata.com/products/MovieMaker_Pro
I'm back, Just got my pro verison (generic wolverine) this is fun. Regarding whether you should do this commercially. I'm thinking if you're upfron't about your process (the equipment, the editing,) AND you target the niche very narrowly (only 8mm and Super 8mm) I could see you running a simple website SEO'd for bargain hunters in this vertical. I'd be super honest with them. Tell them I make up for a lot of the shortcomings of the Wolverine in post and I can do it for 75% off. I see nothing wrong with offering such a service. Also, nice to see the bikini girl in HD, I almost forgot about her, LOL.
Awesome, Andrew!! I see absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with what you're thinking. In fact, I think it would be a nice alternative for customers. I'm just like you, being completely transparent about what to expect is the key. Best of luck with it!!
I have the pro you showed, the claw, sprocket or whatever is not moving my film. It keeps stopping and stopping and stopping. I am doing a 200 foot roll. How can I get it to work?
Hi Sandy, funny thing is, my Pro unit gave me more problems than my 720P unit ever did. Mine did the exact same thing you're describing and I called Wolverine. They told me to tighten the tiny screw (right side one) under the hinged gate, about 1/4 turn. I'll be honest, it was not easy to do because of the angle, but I managed to tighten it just a tad. It helped tremendously. I also had issues with putting larger reels on it (typically the 400' ones), as they seemed like they were just too heavy for the little motor. I hope you get this sorted out.
@@DaveChurchill You're right about that, Dave. I've since switched to the Moviestuff Retroscan Universal for this very reason. The Wolverine units are fine for hobby work and old family films but probably not much beyond that.
Regarding the 720 version you mentioned very quickly it can work on negative film stock. Do you mean scan the negative film onto the card and use the Invert effect on the editing software program to get a positive picture? If so how well did it work for you? Thank you.
Hey Pete, the 720 unit does not have a specific setting for negative film but it can be inverted, like you mentioned, in post. The 1080 unit has a setting that inverts automatically before saving to the SD card but I actually think everything comes out better doing it yourself.
I was considering buying the Wolverine Pro until you mentioned that it really doesn't work at all with the 9" reel, let alone the 7" very well. ...and that's what I have. You mentioned Retro scan, what is that or what might you recommend. Thanks!
That's a great question. Unfortunately, there isn't much in between the Wolverine units and the RetroScan (short of a DIY unit) and the price jumps quite substantially. I now use my RetroScan exclusively, as I do a lot of transfers for people. I'd say if you're a very patient person, you may have better luck than I did with the Wolverine Pro, I just couldn't sit and babysit a 400' roll for 4 hours. In case you're interested in seeing it, I posted a video a little over a year ago about my RetroScan. I've learned so much more about it since then and get even better results now. ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html
@@Filmboy24 Thanks for your quick reply! You made me aware of what I would be facing if I went with the Wolverine Pro. I’m having them done professionally. I had 5, 7” reels and they will be put on an external hard drive in MOV format for $550.00. It’s a lot of $ but the quality will be the best for my purpose for editing on my Mac/iMovie and would save me from days of grief and not having the best quality for my effort. Thanks again!
Hasn't anyone had the mercy to write a better firmware for these chinese Super 8 thingies so we can bypass the automatic filters and encoding settings and turn these things into something actually somewhat usable? I have been following these thingies for a while now and sadly they still suck since they don't let you set up anything.
Great! I just feel like I went to school in a good way after buying this thing a year ago. I bought the 1080 model. I probably wouldn't have bought it had I watched your video first and gotten something more professional however now I am committed. Any opinions on the sharpness feature? At first I thought sharpening would be the best way to go but now I'm not too sure thanks again.
Thanks so much, Tom! The sharpness feature seems to be very similar to the basic sharpness control in most editing programs. I'm not a big fan of raising it, as it kind of seems to accentuate any compression artifacts and natural grain. Although I no longer use these machines, I did learn while doing so, that most of the time it's preferable to leave it at the default setting.
@@Filmboy24 thanks so much! I have done about 5 reels since watching your video. I'm not sure if I'm impressed or not. I don't know how much better these old films could look had I bought another system. My goal was to have solid archive on my family's memories some of which go back 75 years and surprisingly are still intact. I didn't want to have to revisit this when technology changes-my first transfer to VHS in the 90s was sufficient for TVs at the time- I wanted to rest assured that I had the best possible files as these films will not be around forever. Do you think these files are sufficient for my goals or should I have gone another route?-- the price was right and I would be reluctant to spend thousands
@@tomatom7947 I think for what you just described, you made the right choice. Unfortunately, there is a huge gap in home transfer systems between the Wolverine type ($300-$400) and the Moviestuff Retroscan type ($5K-$10K). For people to be able to archive films themselves, there really aren't many reasonable options out there, unless building a DIY unit is your thing. Another option is, of course, sending a roll or two off to a reputable (not your local CVS or mom & pop shop) transfer house. It's expensive but might not be a bad idea for just a few of your most "valuable" rolls. A real 2K or 4K transfer is absolutely amazing and would likely be as high quality as you would ever need (I mean our eyes can only see so much resolution). If you ever need the name(s) of any real transfer houses, let me know. I wish you the absolute best!
@@Filmboy24 thanks! I spent my labor day doing about 5 individual rolls.. I'm feeling more comfortable with the system and the results. But I like your idea and I know what my treasured films are.. I was always reluctant to let the films out of my sight to send for processing but that seems like a great idea so let me know what you think on which transfer houses ... once more I appreciate your knowledge and your videos are great.
@@tomatom7947, Thank you for your kind words!! Glad to hear that you're getting the hang of the Wolverine. Here are a few of the very reputable transfer houses that I'd highly recommend: 1. Pro8mm (Burbank, CA) 2. Film Photography Project (Fair Lawn, NJ) 3. Cinelab (New Bedford, MA) 4. Nicholas Coyle (Littleton, CO) All of these are well known in the film community and have websites & phone numbers listed. I hope that helps, thanks again!!
Sir I have seen your Wolverine scanner review and also Retro Moviestuff scanner also and point is that Retro have 1.3 mega pixel and Wolverine have 3 mega pixel and result is for what better?? Moviestuff of Wolverine. Plz make review these two scanner comparison.
Hi Chandler, thanks for watching!! There is really so much more to resolution than just megapixels. It comes down to sensor size and compression. The RetroScan can capture and export uncompressed MOV or AVI files, as well as individual Jpeg or Tiff images. The Wolverine only exports a compressed MP4 file. Also, the 2K camera on my RetroScan is 3.2 megapixels. Unfortunately, I rarely use the Wolverine units anymore but if I dig them out, I can do a comparison.
@@Filmboy24 seems to be the perfect solution. The whole transport mech is already made. If i can replace the camera then it may be ac really cheap way to transfer at higher quality. I saw another video where a guy swapped the silly roller configuration, and imoroved the pressure plate. I could try and get a better light source too.
@@tbip2001 Definitely could be a viable option. I've seen people modify them before, I would just have to wonder how well the motors and other parts would hold up long term.
While operating the WOLVERINE FILM 2 DIGITALMOVIE MAKER the instruction PLEASE RECHECK FILMS PLACE is displayed and machine stops .i can find no references to this in the manual no luck for me on contacting wolverine Can anyone help me??
Hi Jack, while I've never personally had that error message, I did find this little passage in a manual for one of these machines (everything below was taken directly from the manual): If you receive the error message "Please recheck film's place!", or if you are having difficulty with the film feeding, follow the below steps. 1. Ensure the film size switch on the front of the scanner is set to the correct size. 2. Open the Film Tray Door and check the film. Ensure it is properly threaded and installed under the white tabs. 3. Inspect the sprocket holes on the film for signs of wear. Worn sprocket holes may prevent the scanner from grabbing the holes and advancing the film. 4. Press the MENU button to clear the error message and attempt scanning again. If the error returns then it could be an issue with the film. Test with another film to determine the root cause of the issue.
thanks for reply will try again i have tried with 3 different films they run short time then same message appears i am in Australia and having problems contacting wolverine thanks for youre help
I have a lot of big 7 or 9 inch reels to convert and as they don't fit on the old was really looking forward to this one only to find out the big ones are too heavy? No way to fix that? How about the receiving reel on the right side. Fits a big reel too? I'm lost on how to get my films converted in an affordable way. Thanks for the video though
Well, you may have better luck than I did, I just couldn't get mine to handle the larger reels very well. I felt like they were just way too heavy. Yes, the right side also takes the larger reels. You might have better luck than I did and I wish you the best! BTW, I do some transfers on my Retro Scan unit for people from time to time, very reasonably. Feel free to email me if you'd like, email is in my "About" section.
@@Filmboy24 thanks for the reply! Have about 10hours of film to convert / medium to big size reels all. Do you convert worldwide? I'm located in Europe. There are companies here too but expensive I tried with videocamera but the projector speed is not variable so get black stripes while recording of a screen
@@Filmboy24 have both. Thanks for the offer ! I'll have a look around to orientade and see if there are some nearby options. Sending to states I guess I also a hassle
Hi Martin, May I suggest a very simple solution ? Why not split your 400 ft. reel in half…put a temporary leader for the job, then re-splice the two together again ..et voila ! I have 400 and 600 ft. reels myself and was thinking about that too ! Good luck !
Very good and helpful video. I came to the Interwebs looking for info comparing the Wolverine units to professionally done. We have about 1800 ft of movie in celebration (and archival) of home movie to digitize all in celebration of my dad's upcoming 80th birthday. The question is whether to use one of the Wolverine units or send them out for professional. I am guessing the pros use something more like the Retroscan. Liked and Subscribed.
Thanks so much Rich!! I'd be happy to help you with your footage if you decide to go that route. I also have a Retroscan Universal 2K scanner and only charge .10 cents a foot plus whatever storage media (unless provided). Thanks again for watching and subscribing, I really appreciate it!!
I'm going to be very honest here, Rich. I've waited for years until I can get a unit to do my own transferring because I don't want to risk losing the reels. I also have about 300 feet of Mt. St. Helen erupting which I am quite certain might "get lost." I had the very bad experience many years ago of dozens of photo negatives from the 1940s getting lost. Our camera shop was very reliable but apparently the place they sent them was not. The old negatives are not things you can get mixed up! If I'd known I would later take a photography class, I would have waited and done proofs since they were the old large negatives. Our shop put tracer after tracer on them with no results. Right now, after watching this comparison, I will get the Pro unit (though I don't see a noticeable different in the output) and perhaps later get the expensive one but at least I'll have something for now. This will be better than when I simply filmed the projections in 1990 with a video camera so my grandmother could have the old family movies on tape. I learned later that is exactly how the pros were doing it. I did it while she was visiting so I added post-it notes on the corner of the screen for later; it worked very well. Thank you , Filmboy24, for this video. I've looked at several this evening and this is, by far, the best one.
@@GlennaVan, thank you for your kind words. You will notice a night and day difference between using a projector and one of these little units. They're not perfect but they're great for preserving your old memories and nice to have as a backup just in case you decide to send the reels off for a pro transfer down the road.
@@Filmboy24 It's good to have validation for the way I wanted to do this. Using the projector and the camcorder before worked very well for the purpose at the time (and my projector now needs a minor repair). However, with updates, mostly including FinalCut Pro, I could likely do much, much better with the same film. I'll be honest, when i-Movie came out in 2000, I switched to Mac because the "other side" had no decent video program. Then when FinalCut Pro came out, I bought it and was delighted with it. If you have not used FinalCut Pro for editing and "touch-ups," I highly recommend it. Ironically, I got it to become familiar with layers in Photoshop before I tried it not realizing it would be more involved and much simpler than I realized. When I was working with video regularly, I did some great things with FinalCut. i-Movie has changed so much I don't enjoy working with it anymore; it is great for those who want to do more but the simplicity of the early versions were beyond belief. When I first got it, I taught classes for it using it with still photos which I thought about as you were demonstrating this. One of the things I've done with it is to add narrative to photos which could easily be done with movies as well. For identifying old photos, I put them on video and then went to various relatives and "ran" the movie, stopping for them to narrate that photo recording the sound and then on to the next one. Later, I properly synchronized everything and had great results. I thought a lot about that while watching your video results, so easy to do with video editing software. I deeply regret my grandmother died so many years ago; it would have been wonderful to add her narration to those early movies. We tend to forget how much advancement has been made in the past 30 years related to video and the "everyday" person. I have been lucky in having used 8-mm film (including editing/splicing) then moved to Super-8, then to video and finally to digital. It was not until I saw a documentary on film that I realized how much my own very amateur experience encompassed, from splicing that 8-mm film as a teen for my grandmother on to digital video and FinalCut Pro. I was even the first person I know who used i-DVD. I'm looking forward to getting the Wolverine so that I know what is on those reels, long ago forgotten. I would use the projector to view them but realize film is fragile after so many years and I may only have one chance so conversion is the way to go. Again, I appreciate your very frank (and honest) comparison and comments. It has absolutely renewed my interest in getting this done - hopefully, a good thing. I do tend to get overly involved in projects.
Hi Sir this is good video and you should also review other brands such as Movie Digitizer Film Scanner Pro, Magnasonic 8mm Scanner and Reflecta Film Scanner etc..
Thank you, Chander! Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to review them all. I will say that the first 2 that you mentioned are the same as the Wolverine 720P model, just re-branded. I have always wanted to try the Reflecta, just never did pick one up.
Hi Dennis, honestly, there is so little difference between the 2 that it'd be hard to recommend the Pro model unless you have a specific need (larger reels, tiny bit better resolution). If you're wanting to transfer some personal home movies, the 720P unit would be fine (unless your reels are large than 5" (200'). Thanks!
Excellent - helped me make my mind up. I have some 2000 ft of super8 that's in store. It will be once in a lifetime exercise and a family record easily shared
Hello I just subscribed. If I send you my four hundred foot how much would you charge me to put it on DVD ? It is of 1965 Las Vegas footage. I have no clue what is on it other than what it says on the box that my stepfather and mother filmed years ago. Let me know please. I'm in Ohio Keith Kuhn
For what it's worth: The new 720's has the 3 "tabs"; rather than only one. That is a good thing. Also, they no longer include an SD card. Or at less, it didn't with mine. I agree 100% with the "freewheel" feed-reel. I hate that problem. But your idea is great. Thanks. I hope it works on the non "pro" item. Now for the really bad thing: I received mine non Pro 3 weeks ago from Amazon. Within a few recordings, the motor starting making a LOUD "cat-purr" sound. Then it would go away and come back intermittently. Not good. The "take-up" reel, that comes with the unit, scrapes the plastic body making a Zee-Zee-Zee sound. Not good. It's simply TOO close to the body. But the worst: After the SD card is recorded, the video is quite grainy, TOO much contrast and it flickers. Not to mention, the blotchy spots caused by dust, etc, above the light source. Not Good. The little "cleaner" brush; as you showed, is a joke. It may or it may not get all the dust. So I called them and they said don't use the brush that comes with it; use "Air Duster" sold at electronic stores. And it DOES work. But...yuz better do it BEFORE each recording. Less you might get ugly black blotches on your video and yuz have to do it over again. Oh indeed. I sent it back. The price simply does NOT match the item. It probably cost $50 from China. And a wise person knows the only thing China has ever made that worked is "Covid-19".
Ohhhh, so right you are, my friend! I try and tell people not to take these little machines too seriously, as they aren't built very well. Not sure what the "quality control" is like in the factory that produces them but there are a lot of things that need to be addressed overall. Sorry yours didn't wok out, they seem to be quite hit & miss.
Hi Daniel, with these film scanners, you scan already processed super 8 and/or regular 8mm film to digital (SD card). The film must be processed by a lab first before you can scan it.
Hi Ed, you can buy them brand new direct from the company's website. The 720P unit is $299 and the 1080P Pro unit is $399. They have always had a $20 coupon code and free shipping right on their order page as well. Hope that helps, thanks for watching.
Hey Ty, about the only thing you can do with these machines, when you have damaged perforations is either cut the bad perfs out and re-splice or simply apply a perforated splice tape over the damaged area. I've done both on several occasions with pretty good luck.
I did end up buying the Wolverine Pro and now have some of our old home movies online. I discovered that the better the original film, the better the scan. But most footage required software processing. After scanning I ran the digitized film file through PowerDirector 14. It was a simple two-step process of adjusting the speed and checking the box for "noise reduction" (default setting). This produced video that ranged from pretty grainy to actually pretty good. Thanks again for your review.
That's awesome, Dale! Glad to hear you got some decent result in the end!!
What post software do you feel is better: PowerDirector 14 or FCPX?
you can reduce the artifacts by putting the sharpening on low, you don´t want a cheap machine digital sharpening material ^^
I thought the final results looked very similar from both machines. I’ve been looking for a way to transfer some family video from my childhood. Thanks for the great info!
Thanks for watching Randy! Yes, there really isn't much difference between the two.
Great video. I have the Pro machine and was very impressed with it. I am a hobbyist and dabble in everything from Regular 8mm, Super 8mm, and 16mm. This little machine allows me to scan stuff without always paying someone else to do it. If it is something important, I can always have the film cleaned and professionally scanned--the film is your archive.
Your results show that Super8mm can be a viable medium. The problem we see with a lot of 8mm projects is the camera work. It is EXTREMELY important to learn to hold that camera steady or to use a tripod. Take longer takes. Don't pan too fast. Dealing with a small frame size magnifies these issues. I noted that the camera work was pretty decent on the samples you showed. Also, sunlight and good indoor lighting with proper exposure is important.
Interestingly, I reached out to Wolverine about bringing out a 16mm version. They said they are looking at that and to check back in a year. I am excited about that. 16mm is more expensive, but I shot some stuff at the Botanical Gardens with a pretty beat-up Canon Scoopic and it looked like something out of a television show, very impressive. I would like to do more 16mm, and a 16mm Wolverine for less than $600 would be something affordable, and would pay for itself in the cost of several transfers of 16mm.
Thanks so much!
I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with everything you said about scanning stuff yourself. It's quite expensive for pro scans these days (though, they're there when you need a scan like that). And, the Wolverine pro does a respectable job, especially for seeing and enjoying hobbyist work (like you and I).
You're dead on about the filming tips also. these simple techniques should be a part of a beginner class to motion picture film (maybe they already are). The biggest issues I always see are fast zooms, pans and tilts. They're almost never necessary.
Love to see Wolverine come out with a 16mm version. Last I "heard" was that they weren't interested but your conversation gives us hope. There is certainly a hole in the market, with the Wolverine Pro at $400 and the RetroScan Mark II at $9,000. I do love my Retroscan Mark I unit, but not sure I'll ever be able to save enough to upgrade.
Thanks again!
Thanks for the excellent side-by-side comparison of the older and newer machine. I do see a slight difference in favour of the 1080p. Image contrast is a bit exagerated, but overall, the images are pleasant, and I think the machine is good for home use in view of the price. But, really, why don't they provide a non compressed (or only slightly compressed) output option that can then be processed with any movie processing software, and in the end compressed with a decent codec, applying quality settings as required? That would enable to overcome the dreadful compression algorithm they use, which litterally ruins some scenes...
Thank you! What a difference a less compressed format would make in these machines. Just imagine how many they would sell!!
Waiting for him to knock off that coffee cup over.
I never noticed just how close I really was until you mentioned it, I'd say I got lucky!
It was making me nervous as hell. So glad when he moved it finally.
It's a prop.
@@GeorgeStar Hey! Stop harshing my buzz. LOL
Thank you Filmboy. I have 8mm -Super 8mm with sound movies. Back in the early 70's I added a sound strip to my parents and aunts 8mm films and then added audio to them. My father spliced most movies to 7" reels which were to big for the original Wolverine, so I had to cut them and put on 5". My take up reel started making a lot of noise, and that was annoying. A few months later they came out with the 1080 version, after I sent copies to everyone still alive. My 8mm movies go back to 1952. I was going to buy the pro machine one of these days, and re-do them. But after seeing your comparison, I was disappointed in not seeing much difference except in some highlights. Other than changing the speed, and adding music, I don't want to tweak with the video settings when editing.
My pleasure. You certainly won't see much of a difference in quality if you do them all again with the pro unit. It's nice to hear that all of those old memories are now digitized, great job!
This was really helpful in explaining the difference between the two units. Thanks
Sorry I didn't look at them for a while. Just did and they are 7. After your review I am thinking about splitting them into 5. There are only two. I was a videographer before I retired and videotaped the shows of our churches amateur theater group for twenty years. I have the Premier Pro 6 and Encore. These two reels are mine that I did once before with Moviestuff and a camera on to SVHS. You know how that looks. This is a do over. I did do some reels when I subcontracted for a camera shop with an upgraded Moviestuff that went into the computer. I have also converted VHS to DVD using the usb on my svcr. I transferred PAL video NTSC. I do a lot of investigating when I start something new. That's why I watched videos. I found yours to be the most informative and best instructions. Thank you for getting back to me.
I’m just starting a new hobby of digitising 8mm and Super 8 film, I’ve tried the point at the projector screen method of filming with not fantastic results, looks like these film scanners are the way to go. Ordered a 1020 version after watching this video.
You won’t believe the difference between these little scanners and the projection method. Good choice! Have fun with your new hobby!!
I'm on my 42nd reel now and I've learned a lot. 1) My best results are when I put the film scanner on the edge of the desk and allow all the film to be pulled up from about chair level. I.E. I spool out the film in to a box and let the film advance mechanism pull the film up from the chair to desk height - 20 inches or so. This is particularly important if you have a 400+ ft reel
2) I've learned that if the machine is clicking loudly or inconsistently as the film advances, the results will be rubbish.
3) the right hand take-up spool mechanism is too strong. The key thing I have found is to allow the film advance mechanism to do its own thing and not have a force on either side. Some people just let the film fall in to another box so that the pulling force on the right side of the scanner is consistent. (Because the take-up spool mechanism force changes as more and more film is scanned and wound on.)
My technique is a bit different to the box-on-the-floor idea - what I do is put the take-up reel on the rotating axle but I don't click it on fully. As the take-up axle rotates it drags the reel round just enough to wind the film without jerking it. Important: I still loop the film round the four pegs on the right side. To stop the take-up reel actually falling off (because it's barely attached) I tip the scanner back about 10 degrees. The reel rotates just enough to spool up the film that's been scanned.
4) Expect to baby it along constantly. Splices can get hung up and you just have to pull them through. (Try not to press start/stop - every time you do you're going to get a new file on the SD card.)
5) You *have to* scan to the SD card - the manual implies you can scan to the PC but this is not true.
6) timing is easy - it scans at 2 frames a second which is about 1/10 of normal speed so a 20 minute film is going to take 3 hours 20 minutes to scan - so be patient. It will be about 1.5GByte is size.
The quality, as people mention, is much dependent on the MP4 compression which is awful. It might be possible to hack the raw video stream prior to it going into the on-board video processor but I haven't looked into that. The files will be huge but memory is cheap now.
Wow, thanks for sharing all of this great information!! I haven't used either of my Wolverine units in a long time, since switching to the MovieStuff RetroScan but your information is very much appreciated. Thank you again!!
Thank you! This is what I needed to find! Now, if only someone would make a 16mm version of this...
Thanks so much, Lew!
I saw a video showing to NOT zoom with the Wolverine and do the crop later in post editing. This makes a huge difference. The video with the digital zoom of the converter is riddled with compression artifacts. The video with no zoom is virtually artifact free.
Great video! Underrated channel.
Thank you very much! I appreciate it!!
Thanks for posting this great demonstration!
Kodak apparently licensed the Wolverine unit at some point. I found a used Kodak one on Amazon marketplace. It was very similar to the Wolverine with a few design differences. I had nothing but trouble with it and had to babysit the film the whole time. It would get hung up often, which would result in frame doubling or tripling (which was a nightmare to edit out in Premiere). I spent a weekend duping my wife's family's home movies, and after about 20 reels the SD slot went bad. Once that happened, the machine refused to capture anything because it wouldn't recognize the card (I tried several different ones to make sure it wasn't the card). I sent it back for a refund. The quality of the films I scanned was good enough for home movies, but I'm not really satisfied. My in-laws loved them though, so that's what matters. I finished the rest of them by running them through a projector into a box with a ground glass and 45-degree mirror, which I had my Nikon pointed at on the side with a macro lens. Still not great, but way easier to match the sound which I was able to capture directly from the projector to my computer. It was quite the setup 😂
You said it best though...your in-laws loved it! I think it's so important that we try and preserve as many of these old films as possible and you did what you had to do to get that done...Bravo!!
Thank you. This comparison was just what I was looking for .
Thank you for watching, Nora!!
I just bought and received my Pro unit. Your video was very useful! Thank you so much!!
Thank you so much, Marco! That means a lot to me!!
Thanks for the report: good description of the two machines.
I couldn't really tell much difference between thw two - like Patrick below, I thought the 1080p was slightly clearer - but that's with them reduced to fit side-by-side, plus whatever UA-cam does to uploads; to really show, you'd have to zoom in a lot, and probably show slow or stopped. As he says (as have many others), the best solution would be access to individual frames, or a no (or at least low) compression option, but it seems the manufacturer (who I think is Winait, for Wolverine, Reflecta, and other makers - maybe for Kodak too?) is not interested in pursuing that.
Thank you for watching! I honestly think the difference between these 2 machines is extremely negligible. I no longer use either, as I've moved on to higher end frame by frame machines, but I always have them, just in case :)
Has anyone investigated hacking the 720p unit to record at a higher res or with better compression quality? It's exactly the same camera/scanner in both units.
Good question and not to my knowledge. At least not with any better results yet anyway.
Thank you for doing the comparison between both I bought the 7:20 allow back to transfer it and I was really bummed when I found out they had a 1080p but the difference is not really worth the price buy another one so you rock
Thanks so much, Jhon!! You're right about the image quality difference, it's so negligible.
good comparison there - thank you.
KODAK POLAVISION - we have a couple of super & std8 films - and some polavision. Polavision appears to have the same super track, have used a splice frame to compare hole positioning etc, so wandering if you have tried polavision tapes, i have carefully extracted my reels - just trying to work on a machine to play them now.
Thanks, Andrew!!
I have not personally had any Polavision but I am familiar with it. It was very short lived but a pretty cool concept. You shot the cartridge of film (40') in a special camera and the film was developed inside it's cartridge, automatically. You then popped the cartridge into their proprietary viewer and could instantly watch your film. Neat idea that just never really caught on, likely due to the 'new' video tape cameras. It is the same as super 8 film, so once it's out of the cartridge, you should be able to transfer or project it (though I've never tried).
Hi. Great Video. To tell the truth, I didn't see a great deal of difference in the final outputs. Regards the smaller reels on the first machine I guess I could rig up something using my old 8mm editing/ viewing equipment. Thanks.
Thank you, Robert! You're right, I've seen very little difference between the two. I've seen people rig up things just as you described to allow for larger reels. Best of luck!!
Outstanding informative video!
Thanks so much, Greg!!
Great review. So well done and enjoyable. Thank you
Thank you. Very helpful! I was deciding whether to upgrade to the PRO because I found a few old reels of 7” 8mm film that I can’t convert on the original Wolverine MovieMaker. Good to know that even though the Pro version can accommodate 7”, it’s not designed well for the weight of those size reels.
Thank you!!
I just came across this review and I'm intrigued. My mom has a bunch of old home movies (most likely the 8mm/Super 8 but not quite sure) that I have been wanting to digitize for many years but is very expensive. You mentioned that the first Wolverine machine did not transfer sound. Does the second "pro" machine do sound or are they both silent movies? If neither do sound, do you have any other machines you can recommend that would do sound?
Unfortunately, neither of these Wolverine machines handle sound film. Sound striped film is a bit tricky these days but there are companies that will do it for you. I'm not aware of any affordable DIY options/scanners that will do both.
I now use a MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner and while they also manufacture a sound module unit, I do not currently own one. One of my subscribers does however, and once told me that he would do some work for others. If you're interested in talking to him, he's in the comments section of my RetroScan review video here: ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html
If you scroll down the comments to "Greg Oliver", you'll see our conversation on this very topic. He's a nice guy and is "retired and bored" :)
@@Filmboy24 Thank you!!!!
What happens when a bad splice appears? Does the machine shut itself off or does it get clogged up somewhere? I'd hate to have to sit and watch the unit to make sure it doesn't happen.
Hi Gary, good question. Unfortunately, these machines are very hit & miss and really must be monitored. I've had splices go through with no problem and I've also had them get hung up. They usually get hung up in the "rollers", not the gate area. Also, bad or torn sprocket holes will also stutter the machines, right at the gate.
I watched to the end. Thank you very much. I plan to convert my parents and grandparents 8mm films. I am will try to find a used pro to purchase first.
Thank you, James!! I appreciate it!
Great explanation!! Thank you! Is there something you would that is higher quality than these, but not professional (expensive).
Thanks, Michael!! Unfortunately, in order to get a lot better quality, the machines get quite a bit more expensive. There have been a few pretty decent DIY machines built over the years for pretty cheap but that can be tricky too.
@@Filmboy24 Thank you Sir!!
@@Filmboy24 Mike, Thanks for that reply. I had the same question of was there a step up from the Wolverine Pro but not as steep cost of the MovieStuff RetroScan? Looks like Wolverine Pro is it? I've got family 8mm (Super8 I think) with sound that I want to DIY before I meet my maker. :)
Thanks for this ! ive been looking to upgrade to 1080 from 720 - having viewed the samples the PRO 1080 looks a little flatter. Do you feel the image is better or contains more data? - I have Vegas to color-correct.
Thanks for watching!!
Great review. I might have liked to see how it performed with 7 inch reels since you mentioned that the weight of those reels could be an issue. Thank you.
Thanks so much, Stephen! In hindsight, that probably would have been a good idea.
Your samples at the end needed cropping, so would you do that in the editing software? Would you than scale it? What did the final look like? Would it be better to scan it like you samples and fix it post? What is your export settings in editing. My goal --> scan films --> post to UA-cam.
That is a great question John and one that took some figuring out and some realizations. The issue is with the rendering of two or more different media types. In this case, a video file (me talking) and a film movie file. When I start a project that will incorporate those 2 file types, I usually set my project properties (in editing software) to match my video file (me talking). This is set at 30 fps and 1920x1080. The film clearly has differing specs, but since most of the video is my ugly mug, I start there. The render is then usually a "blended frame" and same output size of 1920x1080, which produces what you see on my finished video.
The way I do my "Super 8 Sunday" clips is completely different (see my latest posted video for an example: ua-cam.com/video/JFOQAaD7GVE/v-deo.html
For this, I import into my timeline at the same specs as the source file (in this case, my super 8 film). My render is then done at the correct frame size, which for my 2K renders is 2048x1536 and the correct frame rate of usually either 18 or 24.
I hope this helps!
The 1080p seems brighter. I wonder if I can just adjust the brightness myself later with an editor. 720 currently goes for $289 and the 1080 is $399. I’m not sure the pro is worth the extra $110. I can’t tell from here, but is the sharpness and detail much different?
Honestly, there really is so little difference between the 2 machines. If you're not planning on scanning reels larger than 5", you'd probably be just fine with the 720P unit for sharing home movies. There are some adjustments that can be made during scanning but you can also do a lot of it in post.
@@Filmboy24 Thanks! The 720 is arriving today!
Very well done. I am preparing to purchase a converter , maybe the new Kodak unit, or the Wolverine Pro model. I do want to add the audio, and I have not found any of these units that offer that ability. I am sure there is one out there, but it probably cost an arm and a leg. So, I am asking if you have an answer for adding the sound that is on the tapes?
Thank you, Richard!!
Transferring audio can be a difficult proposition outside of owning an expensive unit. It's easy to extract the audio (any sound projector and digital recorder) but difficult to align it properly to match the images. I do a lot of it now but I do it the hard way. Here's a video I posted where I show my technique: ua-cam.com/video/AQz5jMGzCNg/v-deo.html
I now use the MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner and will hopefully be picking up their sound module this year. That would make transferring audio a breeze.
@@Filmboy24 Thank you for your quick reply, and great demo of your technique for adding sound track. I was thinking of using my projector, and adding a microphone next to the projector so that I could then add the analog copied sound from the film to the digital video copy.
@@graywolf1911, will you be using a separate audio recorder, with a mic plugged into it, pointed at the projector's speaker? In theory that should work ok but you're likely to pick up a lot of ambient sounds as well, namely the sound of the projector. If your recorder has a microphone "in" jack, use a cable to go from there to the headphone jack of your projector. If it has one, turn your audio recorder's input levels down to 0 and the volume on your projector to around 1 or 2 (very low). I have found this to work best. If you don't have a microphone jack, pointing the microphone at the projector speaker might be sufficient.
Best of luck!
@@Filmboy24 I do not have a separate line out on my Anscovision model 688 projector. So, I will try making a sound cage for the projector to muffle the noise as best as I can.
@@graywolf1911 I'd love to know how it turns out, best of luck to you!
So the Pro unit converts Full HD 1080p Video at 20 fps. The quality is very good; the difference between 720p and 1080p is noticable.
When cleaning up in FCPX, it appears we need to do the following:
1) convert from 20 fps to standard 23.98 fps
2) convert from widescreen 1440 x 1080 .... exactly what ratio for standard 4:3?
For super 8 1.33:1, I'd scale to 1024 x 768.
@@Filmboy24 perfect. Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your help.
For the 20fps, what percentage do you slow down the video for 23.98? (Converting 20fps to 23.98fps using Compressor FCPX did nothing).
@@northridgewood5918 If your scan is at 20 FPS (as it would be with the 1080P unit), and you shot the film at 24 FPS, you would need to increase the speed by 20% to reach 24 FPS. I use Vegas Pro, where I can simply change the playback rate, in this case to 1.2.
Using the Pro machine and pretty happy with it. I have suddenly gotten the urge to film in Super 8 again. Is there something wrong with me!?
BTW, hair looks great.
Haha, thanks Tom! Be careful, once you get back in, it's hard to get out 😉
What is the bit rate of the MP4 files?
I wish they had an HDMI / SDI output on the back so you can record with an external recorder.
Thanks for the deep dive into these little units.
Hi Michael, that's a great question. Coincidentally, I still have both of the original files created for this video. The 720P file gave me 8215 Kbps (8.2 Mbps) and the 1080P Pro file gave me 9846 Kbps (9.85 Mbps). Hope that helps!!
Thanks for your time, it was entertaining
I have a bunch of super 8 film with sound. Is there any machine that will transfer video and sound to digital out there. What we would you recommend? Great video. Thanks
Thank you! Unfortunately, there's very few sound film options in the "reasonable" price range as it relates to purchasing the machine and doing it yourself. Not sure where you're located but there are a few companies that can do it. I can also do it, as I now use the MovieStuff RetroScan Universal scanner along with the RetroSync module for audio. I transfer 50' reels with audio for $12 each. I then export each film as an .mp4 file and upload them to Google Drive for the customer to download. Let me know if this is something that interests you. My email address is filmboy24@gmail.com
I just purchased the pro model and I hope it will become a way for me to earn some money.I am actually scanning a 600 foot reel, and I am taking the sound of them using an old Elmo Projector, although the provided take up reel is to short and a larger one has to be bought, many times the focus fails come from the original camera operator
Best of luck to you, Alejandro! Not much you can do about focus issues from the original film camera operator. Just explain to them that there are always going to be issues with old, amateur movie films. I've tried several times to extract audio via a projector but can never get rid of the "whirring" sound of the projector. I've used the speaker and line/aux out ports. Let me know how yours turns out.
I am getting a lot of "knocking"...I adjusted the plate and it runs for a minute then strted to make noise and stop. what is wrong? 8mm thanks
Unfortunately I really don't know much about troubleshooting these machines. Your best bet would be to contact Wolverine directly.
I have yet to find where someone explains what the USB cable does.......
It's for connecting to your computer, in order to upload your captured .mp4 files from the SD card, in lieu of removing the SD card.
Ok for a 32 GB card approximately how many 50’ reels can be copied? Just an approximation. And, how do you know when the card is full or nearing full?
Filmboy24, with my 720p model, I transferred some Super 8mm and imported into Final Cut. Got some doubled frames all throughout the timeline. If the Wolverine 720p model outputs 30fps, I'm guessing I just need to make sure my Final Cut project is 30fps and that should clear things. I wondered, have you ever gotten doubled or tripled frames with the Wolverine MP4's imported into your editing software?
Yes, you will get duplicate frames for sure, depending on your timeline settings. If your project settings don't match your film's fps, the software will typically "resample" or duplicate frames. I use Vegas Pro and I always let the software match my source file, prior to importing the media. If I'm editing a 30 FPS video file (like me babbling on) and I also add a 24 FPS film to show in the same video (timeline), I manually disable resampling for the film clip. The 30 FPS timeline duplicates some film frames and creates a "ghosting" effect. Disabling resample alleviates this problem. I hope you can make some sense of all my ramblings :)
@@Filmboy24 Thank you, it’s good to hear from someone who has run into this before. I appreciate the help.
@@13lake My pleasure :)
@@Filmboy24I've tried with a FCP project set at 30fps, but still many doubled frames. Maybe there is no correct project fps setting to avoid them. I've spent time trying to manually delete doubled frames, but I don't want to do that.
@@13lake, hmmmm, I'm perplexed. I'm not versed at all in FCP, as I've never once used it. Seems like it has to be something due to resampling of frames or pulldown. Might be a FCP discussion on this particular issue somewhere. Best of luck!!
Qué tarjeta de memoria,es la más reconocidos,para el Volverine??????
You can use any SD card up to 32GB.
Both of them have unacceptable amounts of Gate Weave but the Pro was better. It also didn't have as much yellow tinge in the highlights. Obviously your MovieStuff Retroscan grossly outperformed these units, but it's disappointing the Wolverine can properly register each frame steadily. It weaves and bobs along virtually every axis, X, Y, and even Z.
Yep, definitely not for pro work, that's for sure :)
One thought I had looking at these was what improvement could be made by scanning a film at say -3 exposure, then redoing it at 0 and +3 and blending every frame as a high dynamic range image? It’d be 3x as long per capture (assuming it can’t be done on hardware) and alignment might be an issue, but is this something that anyone does or any value in scanning at different exposures? Any insight you can offer is much appreciated along same goes for your viewers!
I see what you are saying, however I don't believe the scanner would replicate the same frame the exact same way each time. I feel like when you lay the frames back over each other, it'd be nothing but ghosting, as these little machines are just not precise enough. In theory, it should work, but I think in practice it would be a disaster (though I'm no authority). Love the way you're thinking though...outside the box!
if the scanner just had a lift, gain, and gamma control this could be avoided by having you bend the image to fit the DR in the recording. that or a log gamma option.
@@scenicproductions6807, a Log Gamma option would be awesome!
I think I'm sold on the Pro model. It's not a professional unit but on the other hand it's not thousands of dollars. I see it as nice for computer viewing and online sharing.
Absolutely right, Dale! Definitely not theater results but perfectly fine for family sharing.
hello. excellent video!! really enjoy your sense of humor too. i have a broken 57” sony rear projection tv, i was thinking of taking the back off and projecting my 8mm projector onto the back of the tv screen and using my dslr to record from the front. do you know of anyone using this method and if so how did the results come out. cheers, the Rabbit. =:3
Thank you!! That idea would be a first for me and I'd love to hear how it works for you if you end up doing it.
Is there a more commercial unit you can recommend? I do a lot of video transfer and slides/negative transfer and would like to add 8mm movie transfer. Besides, I have a lot of 8mm reels of my own. Thank you for a nice and clear evaluation of the Wolverine units.
That's a great question, and I get it quite often. In my honest opinion, the next step, though considerably pricier than these Wolverine units, is the MovieStuff RetroScan. I now own one (the Mark I unit) and it's given me results and speed beyond my wildest imagination.
MovieStuff now only builds their RetroScan Mark 2 unit but I was able to pick mine up as a used unit on Ebay for under $4K. One just sold on Ebay for $2,500 but it only had the 1080P camera (though 2K can be added).
If you haven't seen it, here's the video I did on my RetroScan Mark I unit:
ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html
@@Filmboy24 Thanks! I did find your other video after posting my question. Looks good, although as you admit, pricey. Am on the Moviestuff website now thanks to your video.
Any recommendations on a machine that does sound?
Unfortunately, no, there are very few that capture sound also, unless you either pay for a higher end transfer or use a projector type telecine transfer.
@@Filmboy24 thanks for the information it was quite helpful.
Filmboy24 Thanks so much for the demo, I just bought this machine, could you please let me now how you got it down to 18 fps?, I mean were you able to set that up on the wolverine itself or did you use an editing program for post prod. corrections? Thank u!!!
Thanks so much! Unfortunately, you cannot alter the frame rate within the Wolverine itself, it has to be done in your editing software.
Terrific Tutorial! Thank you ^_^
Thanks so much, John!!
How can film from the 50s be hd quality so why bother converting to hd if original source is not hd. Is converting these a good business?
That's a good question. Film is actually analog, not digital, so it's inherently not SD or HD, meaning it has no pixel resolution. It doesn't turn into SD or HD until it's scanned and the key is to pull as much information from each frame possible.
Would have liked to see some regular 8mm footage, as I recall Super 8 was better because of larger image size.
In all honesty, Gary, the difference between the 2 scanned formats is pretty negligible. True, super 8 is a slightly wider image but 8mm was so much steadier running through the camera. Super 8 was essentially a convenience film for the home movie market, as it was pretty failsafe to use.
Cool video I'm going to watch to the end.
Keith
They need to make a sound on film 16mm version, one that will scan both the image and match it up with a scan of the optical audio track!
Absolutely, Paul! I'd even settle for a silent 16mm version or a sound super 8 version.
Hard to tell if it's the youtube limitations or the unit's but it looks like the bandwidth is low on both of those units with compression artifacts clearly visible during motion in frame. I think I'll wait until the next generation of products comes along. I would prefer something with at least 10Mbs bit rate to eliminate all those artifacts.
I honestly don't blame you at all. While I do believe that these machines are fine for what they are, they do generate a lot of artifacts due to their highly compressed .mp4 output.
@@Filmboy24 Is there any chance you can tell me what the data rate of that .mp4 file is? If you right click on the file and select "properties" and then the "details" tab, it will show the data rate. Just curious. I'm just guessing it's well under 5Mbs. I find it sad that there is a huge gap in the marketplace for these scanners where you go from the Wolverine 1080p pro for a few hundred dollars to the Moviestuff Retroscan Universal for $9000 and there is literally nothing in-between. I'd be willing to shell out close to $1000 for an upgraded version of the 1080p pro that could encode at 10Mbs or better, eliminating the compression artifacts, but I just cant justify spending $300 on something that "noisy".
@@niknikktm, absolutely, the 1080P output shows a data rate of 9846 kbps and the 720P unit shows 8215 kbps.
I've never tried one personally, but have you looked at the Reflecta super 8 scanner by Pacific Image? I know it's a very slow machine (even slower than these Wolverine units) but I believe it outputs single images. Again, I've never used one, just seen a few videos of them, but I know they were in that price range ($800-ish). They don't do regular 8mm though.
@@Filmboy24 Thanks for that info! I'm astonished the data rate is that high. I guess the film grain must be raising holy hell with it then to produce so many compression artifacts. I regularly rip 1080p blu ray discs (for an institutional movie channel) at 10Mbs and they look great with little presence of compression artifacts. It must be the film grain creating havoc as all of that grain registers as motion. I now recall ripping "12 Angry Men" (the 1957 version) and the data rate was very high due to the film grain. It makes sense now. Makes me wonder just what type of data rate you would need to reproduce the grain accurately? A professionally authored Blu-ray disc is capable of 25Mbs and assuming the original scan was at least that, you can see that even at that data rate, the grain still looks a little unnatural but it doesn't look like typical compression artifacts. Technology needs to catch up on these budget units.
I have seen some info on the Reflecta scanner and it looks decent but it's inability to scan regular 8mm film is a big drawback for me as I have both types that need scanning. Btw, great job on these videos. I find them very informative. I especially liked the one on the Moviestuff Retroscan unit you bought used. It really does have me now considering trying to find a used one. I really like the ability to create uncompressed files for archival purposes. That's elitist level stuff there.
@@niknikktm I wholeheartedly agree that technology needs to catch up, and I'm guessing there's other factors involved that lend to the artifacts. I have to wonder about things like lens and sensor size on these tiny little, cheaply made machines. Couple those factors with something you mentioned earlier, rendering from NLE and uploading to UA-cam, I feel like the tiny image doesn't stand a chance.
I also appreciate your kind words about my videos, thanks!!
when are they gonna make a 16? And yeah the 1080 makes a huge difference in faces. 28:50 ... of course id study those frames :). her eyes are so much cleaner
That's a good question Teddy, sure seems like they'd sell a few if they did.
Great demo and review!! I've been looking into getting one of these machines for years. Am I understanding correctly that MovieStuff Retroscan Universal is like an $8,000 machine and the Pro Wolverine is like $350? It's crazy that there isn't anything in between.
Thanks Joe! Yes, you are very close on the pricing. I had wished for years that there was an option in between as well. I ended up just saving and saving and eventually (about a year ago) bought a used Retroscan Universal Mark I unit online for about half the original price. I upgraded to their 2K camera and I really love the results. I will be uploading a complete video, breaking this machine down on Wednesday if you're interested.
I did some research of finding a super 8 film scanner and bought a Wolverine movie maker pro. I will let u know how it goes. I do have a question, where can u buy a more professional scanner?
Hey Ronald, best of luck with your Wolverine Pro, they’re not bad little machines. I now use a MovieStuff Retroscan Universal Mark I scanner. I’ve had it for a couple years now and really like it. I just ordered their newest model, the Mark II unit, which should be here in a couple months. They make great scanners but they are considerably more expensive than the Wolverine units (but much cheaper than the high end units). You can check out their website at Moviestuff.tv
Nice demos. What is the make and model of the pro unit?
Thank you! The pro model is simply called the Wolverine "MovieMaker Pro". You can see all of the specs and order info right on their website. Here's the direct link to the Pro: www.wolverinedata.com/products/MovieMaker_Pro
I'm back, Just got my pro verison (generic wolverine) this is fun. Regarding whether you should do this commercially. I'm thinking if you're upfron't about your process (the equipment, the editing,) AND you target the niche very narrowly (only 8mm and Super 8mm) I could see you running a simple website SEO'd for bargain hunters in this vertical. I'd be super honest with them. Tell them I make up for a lot of the shortcomings of the Wolverine in post and I can do it for 75% off. I see nothing wrong with offering such a service. Also, nice to see the bikini girl in HD, I almost forgot about her, LOL.
Awesome, Andrew!! I see absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with what you're thinking. In fact, I think it would be a nice alternative for customers. I'm just like you, being completely transparent about what to expect is the key. Best of luck with it!!
@@Filmboy24 --- It's either that or send it back to Amazon when I'm done, LOL (kidding.)
😂😂😂
I have the pro you showed, the claw, sprocket or whatever is not moving my film. It keeps stopping and stopping and stopping. I am doing a 200 foot roll. How can I get it to work?
Hi Sandy, funny thing is, my Pro unit gave me more problems than my 720P unit ever did. Mine did the exact same thing you're describing and I called Wolverine. They told me to tighten the tiny screw (right side one) under the hinged gate, about 1/4 turn. I'll be honest, it was not easy to do because of the angle, but I managed to tighten it just a tad. It helped tremendously. I also had issues with putting larger reels on it (typically the 400' ones), as they seemed like they were just too heavy for the little motor. I hope you get this sorted out.
Does this let you save all the images separately or does it always make the movie file for you?
Hi Dave, no, you only get a saved .mp4 file of your film on the SD card.
@@Filmboy24 Damn. That would have been a way better feature - I noticed the mp4 file has severe compression artifacting
@@DaveChurchill You're right about that, Dave. I've since switched to the Moviestuff Retroscan Universal for this very reason. The Wolverine units are fine for hobby work and old family films but probably not much beyond that.
Regarding the 720 version you mentioned very quickly it can work on negative film stock. Do you mean scan the negative film onto the card and use the Invert effect on the editing software program to get a positive picture? If so how well did it work for you? Thank you.
Hey Pete, the 720 unit does not have a specific setting for negative film but it can be inverted, like you mentioned, in post. The 1080 unit has a setting that inverts automatically before saving to the SD card but I actually think everything comes out better doing it yourself.
@@Filmboy24 Awesome. Going to invest in one. Thanks.
Pro unit definitely had more fine detail.
I was considering buying the Wolverine Pro until you mentioned that it really doesn't work at all with the 9" reel, let alone the 7" very well. ...and that's what I have. You mentioned Retro scan, what is that or what might you recommend. Thanks!
That's a great question. Unfortunately, there isn't much in between the Wolverine units and the RetroScan (short of a DIY unit) and the price jumps quite substantially. I now use my RetroScan exclusively, as I do a lot of transfers for people. I'd say if you're a very patient person, you may have better luck than I did with the Wolverine Pro, I just couldn't sit and babysit a 400' roll for 4 hours.
In case you're interested in seeing it, I posted a video a little over a year ago about my RetroScan. I've learned so much more about it since then and get even better results now. ua-cam.com/video/I1iiv6xR5Xc/v-deo.html
@@Filmboy24 Thanks for your quick reply! You made me aware of what I would be facing if I went with the Wolverine Pro. I’m having them done professionally. I had 5, 7” reels and they will be put on an external hard drive in MOV format for $550.00. It’s a lot of $ but the quality will be the best for my purpose for editing on my Mac/iMovie and would save me from days of grief and not having the best quality for my effort. Thanks again!
@@1lpword My pleasure, I think you made the right decision on that.
Your video was very useful and enjoyable. Thanks! (BTW, I don't like your hair!)
😂😂Can't say I didn't ask for that one! Thanks, Douglas!!
Thank you very helpful.
Thank you for watching, Jhon!!
Where’s link pro
Hasn't anyone had the mercy to write a better firmware for these chinese Super 8 thingies so we can bypass the automatic filters and encoding settings and turn these things into something actually somewhat usable? I have been following these thingies for a while now and sadly they still suck since they don't let you set up anything.
Great! I just feel like I went to school in a good way after buying this thing a year ago. I bought the 1080 model. I probably wouldn't have bought it had I watched your video first and gotten something more professional however now I am committed. Any opinions on the sharpness feature? At first I thought sharpening would be the best way to go but now I'm not too sure thanks again.
Thanks so much, Tom!
The sharpness feature seems to be very similar to the basic sharpness control in most editing programs. I'm not a big fan of raising it, as it kind of seems to accentuate any compression artifacts and natural grain. Although I no longer use these machines, I did learn while doing so, that most of the time it's preferable to leave it at the default setting.
@@Filmboy24 thanks so much! I have done about 5 reels since watching your video. I'm not sure if I'm impressed or not. I don't know how much better these old films could look had I bought another system. My goal was to have solid archive on my family's memories some of which go back 75 years and surprisingly are still intact. I didn't want to have to revisit this when technology changes-my first transfer to VHS in the 90s was sufficient for TVs at the time- I wanted to rest assured that I had the best possible files as these films will not be around forever. Do you think these files are sufficient for my goals or should I have gone another route?-- the price was right and I would be reluctant to spend thousands
@@tomatom7947 I think for what you just described, you made the right choice. Unfortunately, there is a huge gap in home transfer systems between the Wolverine type ($300-$400) and the Moviestuff Retroscan type ($5K-$10K). For people to be able to archive films themselves, there really aren't many reasonable options out there, unless building a DIY unit is your thing. Another option is, of course, sending a roll or two off to a reputable (not your local CVS or mom & pop shop) transfer house. It's expensive but might not be a bad idea for just a few of your most "valuable" rolls. A real 2K or 4K transfer is absolutely amazing and would likely be as high quality as you would ever need (I mean our eyes can only see so much resolution). If you ever need the name(s) of any real transfer houses, let me know. I wish you the absolute best!
@@Filmboy24 thanks! I spent my labor day doing about 5 individual rolls.. I'm feeling more comfortable with the system and the results. But I like your idea and I know what my treasured films are.. I was always reluctant to let the films out of my sight to send for processing but that seems like a great idea so let me know what you think on which transfer houses ... once more I appreciate your knowledge and your videos are great.
@@tomatom7947, Thank you for your kind words!!
Glad to hear that you're getting the hang of the Wolverine. Here are a few of the very reputable transfer houses that I'd highly recommend:
1. Pro8mm (Burbank, CA)
2. Film Photography Project (Fair Lawn, NJ)
3. Cinelab (New Bedford, MA)
4. Nicholas Coyle (Littleton, CO)
All of these are well known in the film community and have websites & phone numbers listed. I hope that helps, thanks again!!
Do you do them for other people ?
Hi Gaetane, I sure do and I actually use a more upgraded scanner now. Feel free to email me anytime at filmboy24@gmail.com for details :)
Sir I have seen your Wolverine scanner review and also Retro Moviestuff scanner also and point is that Retro have 1.3 mega pixel and Wolverine have 3 mega pixel and result is for what better?? Moviestuff of Wolverine. Plz make review these two scanner comparison.
Hi Chandler, thanks for watching!!
There is really so much more to resolution than just megapixels. It comes down to sensor size and compression. The RetroScan can capture and export uncompressed MOV or AVI files, as well as individual Jpeg or Tiff images. The Wolverine only exports a compressed MP4 file. Also, the 2K camera on my RetroScan is 3.2 megapixels.
Unfortunately, I rarely use the Wolverine units anymore but if I dig them out, I can do a comparison.
Does the machine look hackable? I thinking of trying one and adding a better camera/macro lens.
Although I've never personally taken one apart, yes, they do come apart pretty easily.
@@Filmboy24 seems to be the perfect solution. The whole transport mech is already made. If i can replace the camera then it may be ac really cheap way to transfer at higher quality.
I saw another video where a guy swapped the silly roller configuration, and imoroved the pressure plate. I could try and get a better light source too.
@@tbip2001 Definitely could be a viable option. I've seen people modify them before, I would just have to wonder how well the motors and other parts would hold up long term.
@@Filmboy24 i would love to see you revisit this machine and what can be done with AI noise reduction/ shsrpening and upscaling
@@tbip2001 Maybe one of these days.Unfortunately, I don't really use these machines anymore.
While operating the WOLVERINE FILM 2 DIGITALMOVIE MAKER the instruction PLEASE RECHECK FILMS PLACE is displayed and machine stops .i can find no references to this in the manual no luck for me on contacting wolverine Can anyone help me??
Hi Jack, while I've never personally had that error message, I did find this little passage in a manual for one of these machines (everything below was taken directly from the manual):
If you receive the error message "Please recheck film's place!", or if you are having difficulty with the film feeding, follow the below steps.
1. Ensure the film size switch on the front of the scanner is set to the correct size.
2. Open the Film Tray Door and check the film. Ensure it is properly threaded and
installed under the white tabs.
3. Inspect the sprocket holes on the film for signs of wear. Worn sprocket holes
may prevent the scanner from grabbing the holes and advancing the film.
4. Press the MENU button to clear the error message and attempt scanning again.
If the error returns then it could be an issue with the film. Test with another film to
determine the root cause of the issue.
thanks for reply will try again i have tried with 3 different films they run short time then same message appears
i am in Australia and having problems contacting wolverine thanks for youre help
I have a lot of big 7 or 9 inch reels to convert and as they don't fit on the old was really looking forward to this one only to find out the big ones are too heavy? No way to fix that? How about the receiving reel on the right side. Fits a big reel too? I'm lost on how to get my films converted in an affordable way. Thanks for the video though
Well, you may have better luck than I did, I just couldn't get mine to handle the larger reels very well. I felt like they were just way too heavy. Yes, the right side also takes the larger reels.
You might have better luck than I did and I wish you the best!
BTW, I do some transfers on my Retro Scan unit for people from time to time, very reasonably. Feel free to email me if you'd like, email is in my "About" section.
@@Filmboy24 thanks for the reply! Have about 10hours of film to convert / medium to big size reels all. Do you convert worldwide? I'm located in Europe. There are companies here too but expensive I tried with videocamera but the projector speed is not variable so get black stripes while recording of a screen
@@mabatu8 Yes, I'd be happy to help you and I don't mind the distance as long as you're ok sending to the states. Is your film regular 8mm or super 8?
@@Filmboy24 have both. Thanks for the offer ! I'll have a look around to orientade and see if there are some nearby options. Sending to states I guess I also a hassle
Hi Martin,
May I suggest a very simple solution ? Why not split your 400 ft. reel in half…put a temporary leader for the job, then re-splice the two together again ..et voila ! I have 400 and 600 ft. reels myself and was thinking about that too ! Good luck !
Very good and helpful video. I came to the Interwebs looking for info comparing the Wolverine units to professionally done. We have about 1800 ft of movie in celebration (and archival) of home movie to digitize all in celebration of my dad's upcoming 80th birthday. The question is whether to use one of the Wolverine units or send them out for professional. I am guessing the pros use something more like the Retroscan. Liked and Subscribed.
Thanks so much Rich!! I'd be happy to help you with your footage if you decide to go that route. I also have a Retroscan Universal 2K scanner and only charge .10 cents a foot plus whatever storage media (unless provided). Thanks again for watching and subscribing, I really appreciate it!!
I'm going to be very honest here, Rich. I've waited for years until I can get a unit to do my own transferring because I don't want to risk losing the reels. I also have about 300 feet of Mt. St. Helen erupting which I am quite certain might "get lost." I had the very bad experience many years ago of dozens of photo negatives from the 1940s getting lost. Our camera shop was very reliable but apparently the place they sent them was not. The old negatives are not things you can get mixed up! If I'd known I would later take a photography class, I would have waited and done proofs since they were the old large negatives. Our shop put tracer after tracer on them with no results.
Right now, after watching this comparison, I will get the Pro unit (though I don't see a noticeable different in the output) and perhaps later get the expensive one but at least I'll have something for now. This will be better than when I simply filmed the projections in 1990 with a video camera so my grandmother could have the old family movies on tape. I learned later that is exactly how the pros were doing it. I did it while she was visiting so I added post-it notes on the corner of the screen for later; it worked very well.
Thank you , Filmboy24, for this video. I've looked at several this evening and this is, by far, the best one.
@@Filmboy24 That price is very reasonable!!!
@@GlennaVan, thank you for your kind words. You will notice a night and day difference between using a projector and one of these little units. They're not perfect but they're great for preserving your old memories and nice to have as a backup just in case you decide to send the reels off for a pro transfer down the road.
@@Filmboy24 It's good to have validation for the way I wanted to do this. Using the projector and the camcorder before worked very well for the purpose at the time (and my projector now needs a minor repair). However, with updates, mostly including FinalCut Pro, I could likely do much, much better with the same film. I'll be honest, when i-Movie came out in 2000, I switched to Mac because the "other side" had no decent video program. Then when FinalCut Pro came out, I bought it and was delighted with it. If you have not used FinalCut Pro for editing and "touch-ups," I highly recommend it. Ironically, I got it to become familiar with layers in Photoshop before I tried it not realizing it would be more involved and much simpler than I realized. When I was working with video regularly, I did some great things with FinalCut. i-Movie has changed so much I don't enjoy working with it anymore; it is great for those who want to do more but the simplicity of the early versions were beyond belief. When I first got it, I taught classes for it using it with still photos which I thought about as you were demonstrating this. One of the things I've done with it is to add narrative to photos which could easily be done with movies as well. For identifying old photos, I put them on video and then went to various relatives and "ran" the movie, stopping for them to narrate that photo recording the sound and then on to the next one. Later, I properly synchronized everything and had great results. I thought a lot about that while watching your video results, so easy to do with video editing software. I deeply regret my grandmother died so many years ago; it would have been wonderful to add her narration to those early movies. We tend to forget how much advancement has been made in the past 30 years related to video and the "everyday" person. I have been lucky in having used 8-mm film (including editing/splicing) then moved to Super-8, then to video and finally to digital. It was not until I saw a documentary on film that I realized how much my own very amateur experience encompassed, from splicing that 8-mm film as a teen for my grandmother on to digital video and FinalCut Pro. I was even the first person I know who used i-DVD.
I'm looking forward to getting the Wolverine so that I know what is on those reels, long ago forgotten. I would use the projector to view them but realize film is fragile after so many years and I may only have one chance so conversion is the way to go.
Again, I appreciate your very frank (and honest) comparison and comments. It has absolutely renewed my interest in getting this done - hopefully, a good thing. I do tend to get overly involved in projects.
Hi Sir this is good video and you should also review other brands such as Movie Digitizer Film Scanner Pro, Magnasonic 8mm Scanner and Reflecta Film Scanner etc..
Thank you, Chander! Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to review them all. I will say that the first 2 that you mentioned are the same as the Wolverine 720P model, just re-branded. I have always wanted to try the Reflecta, just never did pick one up.
Yes Sir I think unit is same only rebranding may be I am wrong but only rebranding no need to review and again thank Sir,
What about single frame capture? Thanks.
They both capture one frame at a time, however if you're talking about capturing only one frame, no, they don't do that per se.
Which would you recommend?.
Hi Dennis, honestly, there is so little difference between the 2 that it'd be hard to recommend the Pro model unless you have a specific need (larger reels, tiny bit better resolution). If you're wanting to transfer some personal home movies, the 720P unit would be fine (unless your reels are large than 5" (200'). Thanks!
🎥
Is it only to sd cards or or can it be to a USB hard drive
Hi David, these machines only have the ability to record on SD card.
Does it capture audio along with video
Hey Leo, no, these units capture video only.
Excellent - helped me make my mind up. I have some 2000 ft of super8 that's in store. It will be once in a lifetime exercise and a family record easily shared
So glad to hear this helped you out, have fun with the transfers!!
Merci Monsieur pour vos explication et me décider à faire un choix ou faire appel à une société professionnelle.
Can you also use this machine for 9.5 mm movies please?
No, these machines only work with 8mm & super 8.
Latitude of the sensor is awful
Yep, definitely not for professional work.
Would love to find a used one!
Hi Lorraine, they pop up fairly often, used on Ebay. I bought my first one (720P) locally, used, for $150.
Hello I just subscribed.
If I send you my four hundred foot how much would you charge me to put it on DVD ?
It is of 1965 Las Vegas footage.
I have no clue what is on it other than what it says on the box that my stepfather and mother filmed years ago.
Let me know please.
I'm in Ohio
Keith Kuhn
Thanks Keith! Send me an email to filmboy24@gmail.com, I can help you out.
How much do those units cost
You can purchase them directly from Wolverine for $299 (720P) and $399 (1080P). They usually always have a $20 off special and free shipping also.
0:46 😂😂😂
🤪🍽
For what it's worth: The new 720's has the 3 "tabs"; rather than only one. That is a good thing. Also, they no longer include an SD card. Or at less, it didn't with mine.
I agree 100% with the "freewheel" feed-reel. I hate that problem. But your idea is great. Thanks. I hope it works on the non "pro" item. Now for the really bad thing:
I received mine non Pro 3 weeks ago from Amazon. Within a few recordings, the motor starting making a LOUD "cat-purr" sound. Then it would go away and come back intermittently. Not good. The "take-up" reel, that comes with the unit, scrapes the plastic body making a Zee-Zee-Zee sound. Not good. It's simply TOO close to the body. But the worst:
After the SD card is recorded, the video is quite grainy, TOO much contrast and it flickers. Not to mention, the blotchy spots caused by dust, etc, above the light source. Not Good. The little "cleaner" brush; as you showed, is a joke. It may or it may not get all the dust. So I called them and they said don't use the brush that comes with it; use "Air Duster" sold at electronic stores. And it DOES work. But...yuz better do it BEFORE each recording. Less you might get ugly black blotches on your video and yuz have to do it over again. Oh indeed.
I sent it back. The price simply does NOT match the item. It probably cost $50 from China. And a wise person knows the only thing China has ever made that worked is "Covid-19".
Ohhhh, so right you are, my friend! I try and tell people not to take these little machines too seriously, as they aren't built very well. Not sure what the "quality control" is like in the factory that produces them but there are a lot of things that need to be addressed overall. Sorry yours didn't wok out, they seem to be quite hit & miss.
DO YOU NEED A NEW PROGRAM TO PLAY THE MOVIE ON YOUR COMPUTER?
Hi Cheryl, all you need is a program that will play mp4 files. Most computer come with one already installed.
Mr Swede JK
You have to send your cartridges to lab or just can scan it removing the tape from the cartridge and putting it in the scanner?
Hi Daniel, with these film scanners, you scan already processed super 8 and/or regular 8mm film to digital (SD card). The film must be processed by a lab first before you can scan it.
did not say price of of each.
Hi Ed, you can buy them brand new direct from the company's website. The 720P unit is $299 and the 1080P Pro unit is $399. They have always had a $20 coupon code and free shipping right on their order page as well. Hope that helps, thanks for watching.
Nobody addresses what to do when you have damaged sprocket holes.
Hey Ty, about the only thing you can do with these machines, when you have damaged perforations is either cut the bad perfs out and re-splice or simply apply a perforated splice tape over the damaged area. I've done both on several occasions with pretty good luck.
@@Filmboy24 Thanks