Super 8 Film Transfer: Optimized Camcorder Compared to Wolverine MovieMaker MM100
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 ноя 2018
- In this video I optimize digitizing Super 8 Home Movie footage with a camcorder by using manual shutter speed & manual focus, and project onto bright white printer paper. I also use an Ambico film transfer box.
Amazon Affiliate Product Link to the Wolverine MovieMaker MM100:
amzn.to/2q0p0Ow
Through this link, ThriftyAV receives a small commission at no additional cost to the buyer.
These methods are compared to a film scan using a Wolverine Film to Digital scanner. Just the results for yourself!
My previous video about Home Movie transfers is HERE:
• Home Movie Showdown! S...
Equipment used in this video:
Wolverine Film2Digital Movie Scanner
amzn.to/34bJm5R
Sankyo P-1500 Super 8 Projector
Panasonic HC-V180 Camcorder
amzn.to/2JspgwB (link is to the full kit)
Ambico V-0625 All-In-One Video Transfer box
All product links go toward my Amazon Affiliate account. There is no extra charge for ordering from Amazon via these links.
thriftyav.com
Patreon pledges help keep ThriftyAV going:
/ thriftyav
Pledge $1+ per month for Patron Exclusive Content!
Paypal ME contributions can be offered HERE:
paypal.me/ThriftyAV
Bitcoin (BTC) contributions are appreciated:
bc1q0ht079p05kep43p725qht6xj3w7q2ukjs37azv
ThriftyAV is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
#ThriftyAV #Super8 #WolverineF2D 
Наука
As in your first video, an excellent and professionally performed instructional video regarding home 8mm film to digital conversion. Kudos for showing specifically how you performed your testing - well done!
Thank you!... I have one more idea for a transfer vid, so stay tuned!
Dónde se puede compra esto aparatos
In the past, I've used both the screen recording method and the "projection box" method, with variable results. Recently I digitised several hours of Super 8 footage for a friend (her father's old home movies). On this occasion I projected the films onto a plain sheet of white A4 paper (non glossy) taped to a cupboard, using my Eumig projector in a darkened room. I used my iPhone 13 Pro Max to capture the images. This was mounted on a tripod, with the iPhone camera lenses positioned as close as possible to the projector lens, and just beneath it to minimise parallax issues. I used the 3x optical zoom setting on the iPhone to capture the image, filling the screen. The key to getting a good result was to use the Filmic Pro app, rather than the standard camera app on the iPhone. This allowed me to set an aspect ratio of 4:3 and - most importantly - capture at a frame rate of 18 frames per second (both the same as Super 8). I imported all the clips into Final Cut Pro on my Mac mini. For the project timelines, I used 1080p (16:9 ratio) with a frame rate of 25 fps (I'm in a PAL country). This of course shows black bars on each side of the 4:3 frame, which is perfectly fine for viewing on any device or screen. Final Cut Pro automatically conforms the 18 fps footage to 25 fps by adding an extra frame every few frames, thus maintaining the correct timing. The added frames are not at all noticeable, with smooth playback and, importantly, no flicker. I was very pleased with the results. On previous occasions, when digitising my own 8mm and Super 8 movies, I captured at 25 fps (camcorder and older iPhone) - the results weren't quite as good, with some flicker and strobing being present. When using an iPhone, the key is to use an app like Filmic Pro which allows flexibility in setting frame rates and aspect ratios.
Cool work
The paper and box methods introduce light spill into the shadow areas giving the shadows an unappealing milky haze. The Wolverine is a direct photo of the film frame, so you only get whatever halation is endemic to the film media itself. So in this area, the Wolverine appears to crush the other methods. However, using a much larger piece of paper, like poster stock paper (possibly a light grey color) with a particularly flat, unreflective surface texture would fix this issue. The video camera method might even outperform the Wolverine since its image sensor is far superior with greater dynamic range, and its compression codec likely kicks the tar out of the Wolverine's very lossy codec. If you could modify the Wolverine to use a better image sensor with wider dynamic range, and use a modern codec like H.265, then it would be awesome. This mods would require the work of a true engineering technician though.
The Wolverine wins hands down for me in your tests. Might have to get one. Be nice to use a projector for much cheaper and quicker transfers but not if it ends up second rate, out of focus result.
Thanks
Very helpful...Thanks!
I can never understand why Wolverine would go through all the trouble of creating a capture device yet use an image sensor with such low quality and encode the video with obvious pixilation and blocky artifacts - then charge $300 for it. The imager is obviously old stock, circa 2009 cell phone quality. Newer, cheaper imagers exist and they could upgrade the device and even lower the cost yet the continue to use old, low-quality, outdated image sensors and encoding systems. Sad.
Ill try the paper method
I can correct color but I cannot correct focus and glowing edges. I like the Wolverine result better
People don't confuse camera shutter speed with frame speed or rate. The shutter speed is the speed the camera takes to film a single exposure or frame but frame rate is how many of these frames are in a second. No matter what speed is set on the shutter the cameras frame rate will stay what it's set on, with video cameras usually 25, 30,50 or 60 frames per second. My Panasonics are 25 and 50 fps.
👏👏👏👏
Hi Mister I want to collect "old school" movies. 8mm, 16mm etc ... But I have no place to install a projector. Don't these have a player that works with hdmi? How do I solve this job?
Have you done any transfer "with sound"? Would really like your feedback and advice on doing that.
I do not have the necessary equipment to do sound transfers. Some projectors can output sound, but I do not own one.
Hello, your videos are very interesting, i also want to digitize the old family movies, but I have some doubts:
The projector, how many frames do you use it, 18 or 24fps?.
The camera, how many frames do you record the videos?, do you have an anti-flicker system activated?.
I would appreciate this information.
One of my projectors is variable speed, but I play back with the adjustment "centered up" at 18fps. For my first video, "home movie showdown", I had the camcorder set to auto, no anti-flicker system. For this video, I set this iris to 1/60th of a second. For a camera that records at 60fps, this keeps the iris open for the entire frame and reduces flicker.
Thank you. What do you recommend for my camera that you can manually choose the frame rate from 15fps to 30fps?
And with an anti-flicker system at 50hz, 60hz, auto, or off?
@@ThriftyAV
Do you think it would work with the projector at 18fps and the camera at 30fps with the exposure at 1/30?
I have to prove it.
Thank you.
@@raulps1978 Since making this video, I have acquired a Panasonic HC-X1000 that is capable of 30fps as well as 24fps. Going through the manual, I cannot find any "anti-flicker" setting other than exposure. Trying these settings with my projector sounds like a good idea for a future video.
@@ThriftyAV
Yes, it's a good idea, I'm looking forward to seeing the video, let me know if you record it.
Thank you.
Really cool video. I always think the Wolverine scanning the frame will be the best since there's no bending or parallax effect introduced. The fact that it's sped up to much can be corrected using FFMPEG, a free command line tool. It can slow down the footage to the proper frame rate, and with other options, interpolate the footage into the desired frame rate after that for smooth footage. I don't know of any other options that are very thrifty... Most film scanners are very expensive and are often used by professionals, who then touch-up the color and do other restorative work. The great thing about film is that it can be resolved down to very high resolution; I'm confident that Super8 can be resolved to at least 1080p. This is something you probably can't get the amount of detail from simply just pointing a camera at a video playing on-screen.
Could you do a video on fixing tapes with sticky-shed syndrome? I'd love to hear your insight on this. Is it possible to get another pass at a time without having to "bake" it in the food dehydrator?
Loving your content!
My understanding is that "baking" is a temporary fix, and baked tapes should be dubbed over, and the dub should be treated as the new master moving forward. I don't know of any other method of dealing with this issue. When dubbing old tapes, I generally do a fast forward and rewind and listen for squeals or other weird noises that might indicate this issue or other issues, but so far I haven't experienced sticky-shed. When I do, a vid about this topic sounds like a good idea!
I'm using Powerdirector 15 to adjust frame rate. It just duplicates frames, but an interpolation option would certainly look smoother.
Use grey paper, the image quality will be better and it reduces glare and flicker.
Very good idea. Also for camcording using a DSLR with right light settings would be better.
If you don't mind me asking ... What is the make and model of the black projector you are using ?
Sankyo P-1500
Your projected film transfer seems very fuzzy compared to what I get from my Bell & Howell 383A 8mm projector which is so sharp I can see the grain of the film on the sheet of matt white rag board used for mounting photographs. When you look at the projected image with your naked eye is it as blurry as your recording? If so, maybe you should try a Bell & Howell projector which may have a better sharper projection lens in it. I just did a visual comparison between a projected image using my Bell & Howell projector and a scanned 8mm film using the Wolvarine MovieMaker Pro 1080 machine and the projected image looked sharper and more vivid than the Wolvarine image and the film's grain was more pleasant than the video artifacts that the Wolvarine shows even in low resolution mode. I have not tried to capture the projected image yet. But I will give it a try.
I think it might have been a focus issue on the camera my mother was using. None of the footage on any of these home movies has sharp focus. I plan to get a scanning device that can do do high res scans of Super 8 film to verify that it was indeed shot this way. Also, I'm on the lookout for some pro shot or high end amateur Super 8 reels for transfer.
@@ThriftyAV That might be it. Yes, seeing a scanned image should let you know. Or you can look at it with a loupe or another magnifying device like a 15mm telescope eyepiece looking in the opposite way.
Is the wolverine the 720 or 1080 model?
Mine is the 720p model.
how about the magnavox digitizer?
Magnavox does not make one that I am aware of. There is a company called Magnasonic. They have a device that looks almost identical to the Wolverine, however it may have different components and software. I have not tried that device out.
Thanks for these tips! Thx for sharing. Enjoyed your vid! I’m part of the street food movement. Would u support me? Only if that interests u. If not no prob, wish u success & keep up the good content my, hopefully, new friend.
Street food? As in food trucks?