I just made the switch to the Kodak. I have been using the wolverine for years now and I like the Kodak beta for various reasons. Video to come in a few weeks with my reasons.
I noticed the lack of details in the blacks on the Wolverine too... it must also depend on the automatic whitebalance on the machines and on the movie scene. You can always correct the darkness in your software, whereas if the blacks are crushed it can't be brought back
My guess is the Wolverine is made to please amateurs who don't know that video and comp screens have a different gamma, thus it's slapping more contrast on it to give darker shadows on a comp monitor.
That would be nice. They could make a pro model for professionals that would be a bit more expensive that I would pay for then keep the existing model for consumers.
Wolverine can only use max 32GB SD card while Kodak can use 128GB SD card, huge diff in storage flexibility. Although Kodak will likely also NEED more space by virtue of its higher resolution scanning per frame. Kodak also has wider spectrum of reel sizes up to 9" while Wolverine limit to 5" unless you use their PRO version then 7".
A very helpful, and precise, comparison. I'd still slightly prefer the KODAK over the WOLVERINE, simply because, as you noted, in post-processing, I can control the darkening, adjust contrast & saturation, and even "de-pixelate" or "de-noise" the images, using parameter functions in the video editors. Better to start with MORE data, than less. Higher pixel density than less. As an aside, I'm sure Kodak could've spent a bit more time getting the JPEG-iness and artifacts out of their images right from the start, but they're at the mercy of what China decides to build for them, sadly... a formerly leading-edge company 45 years ago, sagging ever since due to bloated management, corporate greed and intellectual laziness. Sad. There IS a sharpness setting (3 levels) you can set during the transfer, but it just induces, from what I've seen, escalating levels of digital "blurriness" into the finished file; the third setting looking the "smoothest", but edges on everything are uniformly, lightly blurred. 🤨 Post-processing, at least for your more important videos, still appears to be the way to go for all those important tweaks.
I have a Winait Film Scanner which is the same as the Wolverine. Although it only takes up to 5" reels of films, I use an old projector to feed the film through the Winait, and then let the film drop into a plastic box. I don't use the Winait to rewind the film back to the reel. Just a pencil in the reel hole and rotate the reel. I use an external monitor when scanning. I also maintain the focus (W) at 0, and crop when editing. After scanning has completed I transfer to the PC, then use software called Film9 to remove some of the artifacts on the scanned Film but also to stabilise it. Having the Focus (W) at 0 allows the stabilisation to work without interfering with the content of the film. ie Any movement caused during the stabilisation won't affect the film when I crop it during editing. I had considered the Kodak Reels due to the higher resolution, but don't think it's worth spending £400 when I already use the Winait with barely any difference between the two. Most of my RUclips content is nostalgia ie Digitised Cine Films. But I have subscribed to yours.
None. I do clean my film first which does help make it run through any of the transfer machines smoothly. If you are getting scratches it is most likely from dirt buildup and not directly from the machine itself
This video is very informative, thanks. I've been using the Wolverine Pro for several years. I'm sure I've digitalized a good 2,000 feet of 8 and Super 8 film. My experience was I got a lot of noise in every scan. I used an old version of PowerDirector to partially remove the noise and correct the speed. Had it not been for noise removal software I would have returned the Wolverine. I'd love to see an improved low cost film digitizer and I'm sure I'm not alone. However, this probably isn't possible in an affordable price range.
I'm a subscriber to your channel and really appreciate your videos. One thing: it's Final Cut Pro TEN (Roman Numeral "X"), not Final Cut Pro "Ex." Just letting you know as a friend! Thanks again and please keep up the good work!
I never really thought about it. I fly on my own here and have always called it "ex". I guess because they skipped 8 and 9 then threw in a roman numeral just to confuse people like me. Anyway, I appreciate your comment and the way you were nice about it. Thank you so much for being a wonderful subscriber! People like you makes me keep going with the videos.
Though the movie is fun, to really compare, it would be better to show a still image from both, and zoom in on it. And I presume both of them have exposure controls.
Yes, they do have exposure controls which the other video shows. However, most people prefer to do adjustments on a computer leaving the raw file how it is.
Thanks for your helpful comparison video of these two units. I have used the Wolverine scanner for a few years now. and know it very well. I read a lot of owner comments of the Wolverine complaining about jitter and flicker when transfering their films. They assume that the fault is with the machine itself. This is not my experience. More often than not the issue lies with the brand of SD card being used. Cheap unbranded SD cards are the culprit. I have found that Lexar or Sandisk cards produce rock solid transfers using the Wolverine or similar type scanners (they are all made in the same factory anyway...just branded under a plethora of different names e.g. Relecta,Winait etc). I hope this is helpful information to veiwers of your channel.
The main problem with these kind of units is compression noise. Not much use having more pixels if the compression noise is similar or greater... Unless of course if the compression can be omitted with the Kodak unit, wich would solve the issue (of course generating very large files, but at least you can process non compressed files then compress them at will). So, does the Kodak unit offer to select non compressed files ?
Hum... I have come to think that the compression is embedded in the camera chip (not on the control board), thus the compression rate cannot be changed. Those camera chips are designed essentially for video surveyance camera, for which high compression is paramount so that one can keep scene records on disk for a decent span of time (many days or weeks)... Those chips were never designed for high quality capture... And the market for high quality capture chips is so tiny that nobody can finance the development of a camera chip with selectable compression rate...
@@patrickdelafon8618 There are professional telecine units, also for Regular8 and Super8, with a more decent compression rate and thus struggling a lot less with grain, but they cost $20,000 a piece, while outputting a DV stream.
I am really appreciative of your videos very informative. Just a question and beyond my technical ability but do you think the sensor in the converter COULD be upgraded and still potentially work. I’ve thought about this for a while as these converters have remained the same for the past several years
That is a good question. Yes, I do think that the sensor could be upgraded if Wolverine or Kodak really wanted to. I guess it comes down to price. How much extra would it cost them to upgrade to a one inch sensor and how much would a consumer be willing to pay for this kind of upgrade. Thank you so much for watching and please make sure to subscribe to support the channel if you have not already. I would greatly appreciate it!!!
I'm afraid a better sensor alone won't do with the Wolverine. The results look to me like it has cheap plastic for its optics, whereas the Kodak has real glass optics.
Hi, nice and educational video. I got the Kodak Reels my selves and is happy with it. I have not noticed the digital artifacts myself but as you show they are there. I think it's a soft ware, or a combination of soft ware and slow computation hard ware problem. The Kodak sensor is huge and need to compress the sensor data a lot. The Wolverine sensor is more the same pixel size that the output file and do not need the same compression. It would be interesting to see a still frame, scanned by a neutral camera, of the Abbott and Castello movie. I think the sepia colors is more accurate than the black on the Wolverine?
You maybe right about the sepia color being more accurate. I do like the black better though. I will scan a couple of frames on my scanner. Maybe that will make a good video! Please subscribe to the channel if you have not already. I'd greatly appreciate the support!
@@TheMediaNerdMT the black and white look might have the look you are after but I prefer to create the look in post. Nice if you can find out what the film looks like, not affected by any digital processing by these machines . 🙂
Everyone has the right to there opinion. I like to go by the saying, "say what you mean but don't be mean when you say it". Which means that you could form your opinion in a better way which would be helpful to other people that read the comments.
After struggling with these cheap scanners, i ended sending my films to professional scanning for a fraction of the cost to a small company gamafix, they scanned 8mm film, super8 film at 4K no problem, retouched the film etc. Output was whatewer i eanted including tiff files lossless
Thanks for the nice videos. I have the Wolverine and have noticed some pronounced frame jitter when digitising super 8 colour film. It seems to be due to variation in the placement of the frames during scanning. Have you noticed this and does the Kodak Reels do any better in this respect?
I found that the Kodak Reels produces a smoother video. Also, if you do end up getting a Kodak, I believe the latest version is "Reels" with an "S". The older version is "Reelz" with a "Z". I've seen a few negative videos about the Kodak "Z". But the two I have work great.
The way I see it, the Kodak has the higher resolution, which results in it picking up more of the original film grain, which in turn has the identical bitrate of the compression codec struggle more, resulting in more artifacts. If one was to conservatively de-noise the footage prior to compression, it would be more obvious that the Kodak scans it at a higher resolution. You can also see the Kodak is more consistent on the contrast, whereas the Wolverine has more of a flicker issue when auto-compensating for image content.
@@TheMediaNerdMT Another solution would be to scan well-exposed footage taken on slow (low-ASA) stock (25 ASA or 40 ASA), as it has less grain, so the Kodak's low bitrate won't have to struggle as much and it's gonna look better than when scanning grainy footage.
I'm not trying to be mean. But there are registration issues with these scanners. Also, they can have a tendency to scratch film. If you have any sprocket issues, it will not scan properly. And the list goes on and on. You get what you pay for. 90% of people that need their family films transferred. You can get them done professionally for about the same price as buying these 2 plastic film scanners.
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.
I did a zoom comparison using the Kodak reels which will come out next week. Subscribe so you can check it out. I will do a zoom comparison with the Wolverine to see how that does. Thanks for your comment and watching!
my wolverine broke after about 5 or 6 reels or so and is now unusable. As soon as you push record, it moves just a titch and then turns into a brick. Construction is likely very marginal.
After thinking about your situation, this is what I came up with. Go to your local computer store (Best Buy, Office Depot or even Amazon and get yourself a SD card reader that has a USB port. You should be able to plug the reader into your smart TV and play the media from the SD card. Please make sure to subscribe to help support the channel if you have not already.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
I personally would go with the Kodak, mostly for editing leverage. crushed blacked are a pain to work with because detail is gone.
I just made the switch to the Kodak. I have been using the wolverine for years now and I like the Kodak beta for various reasons. Video to come in a few weeks with my reasons.
I noticed the lack of details in the blacks on the Wolverine too... it must also depend on the automatic whitebalance on the machines and on the movie scene. You can always correct the darkness in your software, whereas if the blacks are crushed it can't be brought back
@@patrickcardon1643 Very true about the blacks. I clean things up in post when necessary.
My guess is the Wolverine is made to please amateurs who don't know that video and comp screens have a different gamma, thus it's slapping more contrast on it to give darker shadows on a comp monitor.
If they could both just get that nasty compression issue fixed.
That would be nice. They could make a pro model for professionals that would be a bit more expensive that I would pay for then keep the existing model for consumers.
Wolverine can only use max 32GB SD card while Kodak can use 128GB SD card, huge diff in storage flexibility. Although Kodak will likely also NEED more space by virtue of its higher resolution scanning per frame. Kodak also has wider spectrum of reel sizes up to 9" while Wolverine limit to 5" unless you use their PRO version then 7".
You are correct. Thank you for your comment
A very helpful, and precise, comparison. I'd still slightly prefer the KODAK over the WOLVERINE, simply because, as you noted, in post-processing, I can control the darkening, adjust contrast & saturation, and even "de-pixelate" or "de-noise" the images, using parameter functions in the video editors.
Better to start with MORE data, than less. Higher pixel density than less.
As an aside, I'm sure Kodak could've spent a bit more time getting the JPEG-iness and artifacts out of their images right from the start, but they're at the mercy of what China decides to build for them, sadly... a formerly leading-edge company 45 years ago, sagging ever since due to bloated management, corporate greed and intellectual laziness. Sad.
There IS a sharpness setting (3 levels) you can set during the transfer, but it just induces, from what I've seen, escalating levels of digital "blurriness" into the finished file; the third setting looking the "smoothest", but edges on everything are uniformly, lightly blurred. 🤨
Post-processing, at least for your more important videos, still appears to be the way to go for all those important tweaks.
Thank you for your comment!
I have a Winait Film Scanner which is the same as the Wolverine. Although it only takes up to 5" reels of films, I use an old projector to feed the film through the Winait, and then let the film drop into a plastic box.
I don't use the Winait to rewind the film back to the reel. Just a pencil in the reel hole and rotate the reel.
I use an external monitor when scanning. I also maintain the focus (W) at 0, and crop when editing.
After scanning has completed I transfer to the PC, then use software called Film9 to remove some of the artifacts on the scanned Film but also to stabilise it. Having the Focus (W) at 0 allows the stabilisation to work without interfering with the content of the film. ie Any movement caused during the stabilisation won't affect the film when I crop it during editing.
I had considered the Kodak Reels due to the higher resolution, but don't think it's worth spending £400 when I already use the Winait with barely any difference between the two.
Most of my RUclips content is nostalgia ie Digitised Cine Films.
But I have subscribed to yours.
Thanks! Have you ever had experiece about scratches and damage issue caused by the Wolverine?
None. I do clean my film first which does help make it run through any of the transfer machines smoothly. If you are getting scratches it is most likely from dirt buildup and not directly from the machine itself
This video is very informative, thanks. I've been using the Wolverine Pro for several years. I'm sure I've digitalized a good 2,000 feet of 8 and Super 8 film. My experience was I got a lot of noise in every scan. I used an old version of PowerDirector to partially remove the noise and correct the speed. Had it not been for noise removal software I would have returned the Wolverine. I'd love to see an improved low cost film digitizer and I'm sure I'm not alone. However, this probably isn't possible in an affordable price range.
I’d pay a bit more for a scanner that produces better results.
I'm a subscriber to your channel and really appreciate your videos. One thing: it's Final Cut Pro TEN (Roman Numeral "X"), not Final Cut Pro "Ex." Just letting you know as a friend! Thanks again and please keep up the good work!
I never really thought about it. I fly on my own here and have always called it "ex". I guess because they skipped 8 and 9 then threw in a roman numeral just to confuse people like me. Anyway, I appreciate your comment and the way you were nice about it. Thank you so much for being a wonderful subscriber! People like you makes me keep going with the videos.
I'm watching this on a tablet but I really think the Kodak shows more details than the Wolverine.
I agree. I like the Kodak over the Wolverine
Though the movie is fun, to really compare, it would be better to show a still image from both, and zoom in on it. And I presume both of them have exposure controls.
Yes, they do have exposure controls which the other video shows. However, most people prefer to do adjustments on a computer leaving the raw file how it is.
Thanks for your helpful comparison video of these two units. I have used the Wolverine scanner for a few years now. and know it very well. I read a lot of owner comments of the Wolverine complaining about jitter and flicker when transfering their films. They assume that the fault is with the machine itself. This is not my experience. More often than not the issue lies with the brand of SD card being used. Cheap unbranded SD cards are the culprit. I have found that Lexar or Sandisk cards produce rock solid transfers using the Wolverine or similar type scanners (they are all made in the same factory anyway...just branded under a plethora of different names e.g. Relecta,Winait etc). I hope this is helpful information to veiwers of your channel.
Thank you! I am sure that your comment will be helpful. FYI I have never had an issue and I do use good brands of cards like you do
The main problem with these kind of units is compression noise. Not much use having more pixels if the compression noise is similar or greater... Unless of course if the compression can be omitted with the Kodak unit, wich would solve the issue (of course generating very large files, but at least you can process non compressed files then compress them at will). So, does the Kodak unit offer to select non compressed files ?
No, it does not.
Hum... I have come to think that the compression is embedded in the camera chip (not on the control board), thus the compression rate cannot be changed. Those camera chips are designed essentially for video surveyance camera, for which high compression is paramount so that one can keep scene records on disk for a decent span of time (many days or weeks)... Those chips were never designed for high quality capture... And the market for high quality capture chips is so tiny that nobody can finance the development of a camera chip with selectable compression rate...
Interesting
@@patrickdelafon8618 There are professional telecine units, also for Regular8 and Super8, with a more decent compression rate and thus struggling a lot less with grain, but they cost $20,000 a piece, while outputting a DV stream.
I am really appreciative of your videos very informative. Just a question and beyond my technical ability but do you think the sensor in the converter COULD be upgraded and still potentially work. I’ve thought about this for a while as these converters have remained the same for the past several years
That is a good question. Yes, I do think that the sensor could be upgraded if Wolverine or Kodak really wanted to. I guess it comes down to price. How much extra would it cost them to upgrade to a one inch sensor and how much would a consumer be willing to pay for this kind of upgrade. Thank you so much for watching and please make sure to subscribe to support the channel if you have not already. I would greatly appreciate it!!!
I'm afraid a better sensor alone won't do with the Wolverine. The results look to me like it has cheap plastic for its optics, whereas the Kodak has real glass optics.
Hi, nice and educational video. I got the Kodak Reels my selves and is happy with it. I have not noticed the digital artifacts myself but as you show they are there. I think it's a soft ware, or a combination of soft ware and slow computation hard ware problem. The Kodak sensor is huge and need to compress the sensor data a lot. The Wolverine sensor is more the same pixel size that the output file and do not need the same compression. It would be interesting to see a still frame, scanned by a neutral camera, of the Abbott and Castello movie. I think the sepia colors is more accurate than the black on the Wolverine?
You maybe right about the sepia color being more accurate. I do like the black better though. I will scan a couple of frames on my scanner. Maybe that will make a good video! Please subscribe to the channel if you have not already. I'd greatly appreciate the support!
@@TheMediaNerdMT the black and white look might have the look you are after but I prefer to create the look in post. Nice if you can find out what the film looks like, not affected by any digital processing by these machines . 🙂
This Sunday I have a video coming out that compares the two machines using 8mm color film. That may answer the question about the sepia color.
Kodak apparently interpolates and B&W should be black and white and not brown.
Clearly the Wolverine is better and the other is a scrap build.
Everyone has the right to there opinion. I like to go by the saying, "say what you mean but don't be mean when you say it". Which means that you could form your opinion in a better way which would be helpful to other people that read the comments.
This is extremely helpful, this gave me everything I needed to get ready for upgrading from my telecine/multiplexor setup
Thank you! Happy transferring!
I think reel size limitations was a difference, with the Wolverine having smaller reels. Unless that was the pro version. Not sure.
I was using the pro version which takes the larger reels.
After struggling with these cheap scanners, i ended sending my films to professional scanning for a fraction of the cost to a small company gamafix, they scanned 8mm film, super8 film at 4K no problem, retouched the film etc. Output was whatewer i eanted including tiff files lossless
What ever it takes
Thanks for the nice videos. I have the Wolverine and have noticed some pronounced frame jitter when digitising super 8 colour film. It seems to be due to variation in the placement of the frames during scanning. Have you noticed this and does the Kodak Reels do any better in this respect?
I found that the Kodak Reels produces a smoother video. Also, if you do end up getting a Kodak, I believe the latest version is "Reels" with an "S". The older version is "Reelz" with a "Z". I've seen a few negative videos about the Kodak "Z". But the two I have work great.
Professional and well executed comparison testing.
Thank you very much!
The way I see it, the Kodak has the higher resolution, which results in it picking up more of the original film grain, which in turn has the identical bitrate of the compression codec struggle more, resulting in more artifacts. If one was to conservatively de-noise the footage prior to compression, it would be more obvious that the Kodak scans it at a higher resolution. You can also see the Kodak is more consistent on the contrast, whereas the Wolverine has more of a flicker issue when auto-compensating for image content.
Thank you for your knowledgeable comment!
@@TheMediaNerdMT Another solution would be to scan well-exposed footage taken on slow (low-ASA) stock (25 ASA or 40 ASA), as it has less grain, so the Kodak's low bitrate won't have to struggle as much and it's gonna look better than when scanning grainy footage.
Looked like the Kodak had more detail in darks.
Agreed
Saya . Minta Proyektor nya yang ngga ke pakai tq...
Sorry
I'm not trying to be mean. But there are registration issues with these scanners. Also, they can have a tendency to scratch film. If you have any sprocket issues, it will not scan properly. And the list goes on and on.
You get what you pay for. 90% of people that need their family films transferred. You can get them done professionally for about the same price as buying these 2 plastic film scanners.
Thanks for your comment.
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.
I did a zoom comparison using the Kodak reels which will come out next week. Subscribe so you can check it out. I will do a zoom comparison with the Wolverine to see how that does. Thanks for your comment and watching!
I only found it scans at 30 fps which I found to be a bit fast later I slowed it down to to make it a bit more natural
The Wolverine or the Kodak? I believe the Kodak is 20fps.
my wolverine broke after about 5 or 6 reels or so and is now unusable. As soon as you push record, it moves just a titch and then turns into a brick. Construction is likely very marginal.
Like all machines there will be ones that breakdown. I have had to return my fair share. Return it.
pretty useful. Thanks
Glad it was helpful!
A tv that can read and display a scan disc
Don't have a computer. Will a smart tv display a scan disc?
The cable that connects to the TV for viewing while digitizeing, can it pass from recorded video on scan disk to smart TV
I don't know what you mean by scan disc. Do you mean a San Disk sd card? If so, your TV would need a SD reader.
@@TheMediaNerdMT yes, I'm a novice.
After thinking about your situation, this is what I came up with. Go to your local computer store (Best Buy, Office Depot or even Amazon and get yourself a SD card reader that has a USB port. You should be able to plug the reader into your smart TV and play the media from the SD card. Please make sure to subscribe to help support the channel if you have not already.