Wolverine VS Kodak 8mm Color Quality Comparison

I wanted to see if there was any kind of color difference between the Wolverine 8mm Film Digitizer and the Kodak Reels 8mm Film digitizer.

You can find either one of these machines on Amazon. Here are the links.
To clean the film, I use Pec 12 fluid and Pads. Here is a link to amazon for these products.
By clicking the links, you will be supporting my channel monetarily which I thank you for!

#kodakfilm #8mmfilm #wolverine

[hakansoder]

On the Kodak Reels machine you can cotrol the tint. In one review-video I found it turns out that the tint control actually controls the overall saturation. I will order the Kodak reels for the frame stabiltity and also for (some) better filmhandling by the machine. The sharpness seems to be equal in the tested machines and the rest is taken care of in post. I do not like the jumpy picture from Wolverine. The first thing I will do is to capture 10 second segments with different settings and carefully note them down. Then look at the results in my editing program. This will set the base for true settings for all future scans. And one more thing that is never discussed. The room would be in darkness. I do not want light from the room to hit the sensors of the machine. I might even cover the screen to make sure.
Thank you Media Nerd for your video.

[Mocspil]

As for the Kodak Reels color reproduction, Kodachrome 8mm film was known to have a warm color bias, leaning towards the red, orange, and yellow hues. Which Gave Kodachrome 8mm films a vivid appearance, but it also less accurate for reproducing natural colors. Whereas, Ektachrome leaned toward the blues, if I remember correctly.

[Niei]

Let's assume you want a final resolution of 1440x1080 pixels (1080p 4:3). The Wolverine outputs this resolution even if you've used overscan (to apply stabilization in post for example). Now what happens if you crop your final edit? Exactly, you'll end up with a resolution that is lower than what you need. So you'll have to upscale your cropped edit to 1440x1080 to get to the desired resolution.
The Kodak gives you a 1728x1296 output file. This gives you a decent leeway in post and you can crop your final edit to 1440x1080 without the need to upscale and thus no loss in quality. Don't overlook this. It's quite an important advantage of the Kodak over the Wolverine.

[DustinHasVideos]

I’m extremely appreciative for a comparison. I was trying to determine if I wanted to scan film myself or shoot less and have professionals do it. The only nice addition would be if you included modern film shot for the test. This would also enable shooting with a digital camera for a reference

[speakeasyarchives]

Both dont transfer very well. Both jump and jiggle. And there are register issues. But i understand why so many are drawn to these two scanners. Price!

I do respect this comparison. I love this youtube channel.

[randytate]

1:49 the Wolverine's failure to properly register each frame in the same location introduces a horrific amount of gate weave, over and above what these tiny camera introduce during filming. Even if I thought the colors were better, fixing the jittery gate weave in post takes a lot of time. Also, both seem plagued with brutal compression settings. Considering all the compromises these budget systems make to keep them affordable, the compression codec is just software. They could even use a lossless codec, considering how cheap large capacity SD cards are. Nice video, good revoew.

[codigomovil]

I don't know if you noticed that the Wolverine footage is very "jumpy", like if each frame was not perfectly aligned during the scanning process!

I like the Kodak footage, because it is more stable.

Regarding the color shift, it might be fixed by tweaking the settings or by color correction in post!

[GJPG]

Looking at your examples:
• the Wolverine had a much better colour balance at 1:07 (boy casting) - the Kodak had a pronounced red/yellow cast.
• both scanned at (OK, output result files with) too high a frame rate (noticeable with the cars/cactus scene), but that's easily fixed in post.
• In the 1:24 shot, the Kodak's higher resolution is very evident - in the figures, whatever it is in the middle, and especially in the bush in the foreground. Again at 1:37.

I'm puzzled: 1:59 "the Kodak has over twice the scan resolution of the Wolverine", and earlier (0:46) you say the W is capturing with 3.53 MP and 1080p, and the K 8.08 1296P. Surely it's the file format that matters (as long as it's not interpolating to give a _higher_ value), so it's only 1.2× - doesn't matter how many pixels in the sensor, if you don't get them in the output file.

From your examples, I'd say the W had better colour throughout (the K had the colour cast I associate with old colour photographic materials), and the K better resolution (sharper) wherever I actually looked. And a bit less jumpy. It'd be interesting to see how both handle sharp transitions - in both colour balance and brightness (exposure). [I take it that neither allows capture of individual frames, only producing an mp4 file - with compression artefacts 🙁- on the memory card.]

I'm probably going to wait a few more years - either for improvements in quality (ability to take single frames would be good, or at least have _no_ compression), or reductions in price (ideally both); ideally a true telecine machine (line sensor, smooth film motion), but that's probably too much to hope for.

[stefan.holst]

The objective was to evaluate if there is any color difference between the Wolverine and Kodak Reels. And the answer is, yes and clearly.
From my perspective the Wolverine has a more true to human eye perception when it comes to color. But the shadows is a little bit too dark I think .
But an other question is, what machine is most true to the original 8mm film media?
When it comes to most end user they do probably not care so much. They are happy to watch there old movies in a more easy way on there television monitor and remember the people and places from the film.

[seralegre]

In all this comparations I always appreciate the jumpy video that wolverine makes, but funny thing is nobody says it, although is VERY obvious to me. Plus the kodak has more resolution, so you could even stabilizate it better in post.

[ray_notes]

2:05 there are significant differences between the scans. The Kodak seemed to have a slight edge enhancement present but this might have simply been due to the increased noise from the high resolution punishing the compression algorithm (Either at scan time or from YouTube). The Wolverine did not present as much noise but at the cost of some detail.

[williamjaeger]

Great comparisons, clear and fair. BUT…it strikes me (from having tried one on loan) that there is a huge amound of compression artifacts…digital noise that is far more than the grain "noise" of the original film. So the question is: can you try to adjust (turn down) the sharpness on these and compare for resolution? I'm thinking the Kodak with less sharpening might (!) look sharper and cleaner than the Wolverine if tweaked. Maybe.

[blkbrd]

What was the age of the two machines used for comparison or how many times was each used before this test? Just wondering if the Wolverine is older or has been used more because everyone is saying its "jumpy"?

[roncarney]

My Wolverine started gear binding after about 12 3” reels, for $400+ I was hoping for a little more longevity.

[advancetecgr]

The colors are absolutely unstable and sometimes unreal from one scene to another. After countless tests I gave up and returned to my Wolverine pro, which has stable colors throughout the whole film.
With reduced tint, it improved but the effect still remains. -For instance a gray background of a title scene becomes red when it`s after a previous scene with a nature take or other. I `m hoping, that Kodak cares about this and provides an update of the firmware (I have 2.0 American version). With this issue being solved, I like the features of the Kodak Reels and I would take it back from the junk room.

[Mocspil]

You mentioned that the Kodak Reels 8mm Film digitizer captures film in 1296p... What is the actual resolution (Hx1296, aspect ratio, & bitrate) of the resulting .MP4 files created? Thanks in advance!

[kimtrampus]

Why is the wolverine side so jumpy in comparison the Kodak ?

[myronachtman]

The Kodak version looks incredible "noisy, " even noisier than the Wolverine. That's a surprise to me.

[supersooty]

I think i'm right in saying the true problem here is not having an ajustable colour balance in the camera.

[HMV]

WHAT? "Not too much difference between the two". Even my 83-years-old eyes can spot the vertical jitter of the image in the Wolverene example To me, this is unacceptable. I use the same model Wolverine scanner myself. The only thing I can do to obtain a satisfactorily steady result is not to use a takeup reel. Instead, I allow the scanned film to fall into a box on the floor.