I bought one of these a month ago. I have 25 years of super 8 to scan. Very happy with the result. You need to clean your film and watch for particles that land on the light cover that sits behind the frames that are being scanned. You will need to blow brush a lot as these particles accumulate and you can black blobs on your scanned result. The scanning technology is a lot cheaper now than it was.
I have the Pro and like it. One thing I noticed though is quite a high level of pixilation when videos are played full screen. I've seen others post their converted movies with this same machine and the pixilation is much less. Any ideas why this is happening?
I appreciate the question, unfortunately I don't have an direct answer for you as to what might be causing the pixilation. Perhaps evaluate, if the unit is "zoomed" in too much onto the frame. It may be possible to soften the pixilation in an editing software with a slight gaussian blur. (Just a thought). Thanks for watching.
The reason you're getting highly pixelated video are for two reasons. One, the scanner's image sensor is not very high quality do to its small 3.4 megapixel sensor. This sensor can do 720P HD but combine that with the high amount of video compression and the result is more compression noise or pixelation. For $300 for a scanner, you give up resolution and speed. It goes without saying, more expensive pro level scanners will deliver much higher quality scans. I do this kind of work professionally and we scan all our home movie jobs in 1080p and the quality is quite good but we are using a professional level scanner.
@@imaginariumpictures Ah - I can see about nine "pulses" as it transitions. So is the original film the end of the transitions (8:10), and that at 8:04 taken with a modern digital camera? If so, why did you do this? (And how on earth did you line up the two sources?)
@@G6JPG If I am remembering correctly, you are correct, the entire clip with Royce is of the modern camera. I cut the single clip into two, the first portion including the "film" filter the other without it. I then used a cross fade transition between the two clips. In essence the filter simply fades away. I did this to emphasis how one might not appreciate the technology of today, if they are not aware of the older technology. Thanks for watching.
Duration of time will be influenced by the size of the reel, the Maker Pro will hold a up to a 9" reel. One is then limited to the size of their SD card. The unit does not support 16mm. Thanks for the question.
All these machines scan at about 2 frames per second, i. e. for standard 8, 1/8 real speed, for super 8, 1/9 (or 1/12 if sound film). So your 1 hour film will take 8 or 9 hours to scan, but assuming it fits on a reel the machine can take, and doesn't have splices that cause it to jam, it should run. It's physically made for 8mm film - that's what most amateurs used (it was expensive enough!). A 16mm machine would be much bigger - would have to handle much bigger and heavier reels, for a start.
I bought one of these a month ago. I have 25 years of super 8 to scan. Very happy with the result. You need to clean your film and watch for particles that land on the light cover that sits behind the frames that are being scanned. You will need to blow brush a lot as these particles accumulate and you can black blobs on your scanned result. The scanning technology is a lot cheaper now than it was.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Your comments about cleaning the film is very helpful and will better insure the best results.
I have the Pro and like it. One thing I noticed though is quite a high level of pixilation when videos are played full screen. I've seen others post their converted movies with this same machine and the pixilation is much less. Any ideas why this is happening?
I appreciate the question, unfortunately I don't have an direct answer for you as to what might be causing the pixilation. Perhaps evaluate, if the unit is "zoomed" in too much onto the frame. It may be possible to soften the pixilation in an editing software with a slight gaussian blur. (Just a thought). Thanks for watching.
The reason you're getting highly pixelated video are for two reasons. One, the scanner's image sensor is not very high quality do to its small 3.4 megapixel sensor. This sensor can do 720P HD but combine that with the high amount of video compression and the result is more compression noise or pixelation. For $300 for a scanner, you give up resolution and speed. It goes without saying, more expensive pro level scanners will deliver much higher quality scans. I do this kind of work professionally and we scan all our home movie jobs in 1080p and the quality is quite good but we are using a professional level scanner.
Was the change in contrast from 8:03 to 8:10 (the dog) on the original film, or something you did?
Ah the "big dog". I originally filmed Royce with a modern camera and had applied a film filter onto it. Then transitioned back to the original film.
@@imaginariumpictures Ah - I can see about nine "pulses" as it transitions. So is the original film the end of the transitions (8:10), and that at 8:04 taken with a modern digital camera? If so, why did you do this? (And how on earth did you line up the two sources?)
@@G6JPG If I am remembering correctly, you are correct, the entire clip with Royce is of the modern camera. I cut the single clip into two, the first portion including the "film" filter the other without it. I then used a cross fade transition between the two clips. In essence the filter simply fades away. I did this to emphasis how one might not appreciate the technology of today, if they are not aware of the older technology. Thanks for watching.
@@imaginariumpictures Ah, so not really anything to do with a review of the Wolverine.
what about film that is 1 hour or longer and what about 16 mm
Duration of time will be influenced by the size of the reel, the Maker Pro will hold a up to a 9" reel. One is then limited to the size of their SD card. The unit does not support 16mm. Thanks for the question.
All these machines scan at about 2 frames per second, i. e. for standard 8, 1/8 real speed, for super 8, 1/9 (or 1/12 if sound film). So your 1 hour film will take 8 or 9 hours to scan, but assuming it fits on a reel the machine can take, and doesn't have splices that cause it to jam, it should run.
It's physically made for 8mm film - that's what most amateurs used (it was expensive enough!). A 16mm machine would be much bigger - would have to handle much bigger and heavier reels, for a start.
E il sonoro?
No se transfiere ningún sonido. (There is no sound transferred.)