This Super 8 and 8mm Film Scanner Kinda SUCKS, BUT...

smoosh SUBSCREEB please:

PO Box:
Sweet Lou Photography
PO Box 4353
Danbury CT, 06810-4353

Stuff I use to make my videos:
***Full disclosure, these are affiliate links or codes, I do benefit from you using them***

Check out the scanner here (not an affiliate link)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW ME:
Instagram: @SweetLouPhotography
Follow Horseman: @ohshititshorseman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
memes

[pebey]

Color negative film has an orange layer added. It has to do with correcting an imbalance in the dye layers during processing. If you simply scan a color negative, then invert the colors, you get that blue cast. Areas that should be black will be dark blue, because the negative is orange where it would be clear if negative film were simply the natural colors of the scene, inverted. But it isn't.
The reason the pro scan looks natural is because the scanner is set to compensate for this. If you scan your negative with a home unit, then invert the colors snd expect it to look correct, it won't work. Not the fault of the scanner! It was only intended for scanning reversal film.

[randomfamilyvideos]

I tried several approaches to scanning my dad's Super 8 film (20 hours down, 20 hours to go). Projecting onto 11"x17" white cardstock with a variable-speed projector from eBay ($50) and capturing with a miniDV standard definition video camera worked best. (A projector screen was too low contrast; a light capture box with frosted glass was too bright in the middle and too dark on the edges). A machine like this clipped off the edges, blew out the colors, had too many compression artifacts, and, worst of all, had about half the resolution of my standard definition miniDV camcorder. I don't mean resolution like "how many pixels in the final file", I mean resolution like "how much detail can I see in the movie." Side-by-side, a frame captured via cardstock + miniDV was at least twice as sharp as the blocky, over-compressed frame from one of these scanners. That is a shame, because capturing a frame at a time should theoretically be a much better approach. However, the implementation of every consumer-level machine produces lame images per frame, which result in a lame video. Bummer.

[JacobCarlson]

I wonder if scanning color negative as positive film and then reversing the colors in post would yield any better results...

[jansmit]

The Wolverine popup after powerup does only tell you that the software on the controler board is from Wolverine. The mechanics will be similar but corners could be cut to obtain a lower price.

[brineb]

I love Straight 8 and Super 8 did a lot of it in the 70s thru the 80s, but have yet to find a cheap scanning option!!! I wanna digitize my past and may try some in the future if the cost works into my budget!!! Yes, I was at the 1964 Worlds Fair as a kid!!!

[trickfall]

Picked one of these up for 249.99 and at that price it's worth it to me. I'm the kind of person who'd rather mess around with something like this then send stuff off to a lab, or post house to scan. If you're just looking for the best quality scan though you should send your stuff out.

[jes]

I have a Wolverene Pro scanner I am happy with. It has 1080 I just wish it transferred the sound from Super 8mmfilms too, . But I have on the most part been happy with its results.

[dalehammond]

I've owned one of these for a couple years now and have digitalized thousands of feet of 8 and super 8 film. Coupled with my enhancement software it does a very good job for online sharing. On it's own it's junk. I remove all the noise and adjust the contrast, etc., and end up with a very nice video.

[dalehammond]

I've done a lot of 8 & Super 8 film with the Wolverine MovieMaker Pro scanner and with a little help from PowerDirector 14 I get scans that look great online. I never get anything like the terrible scans you show here. I very seldom shoot film today due to the cost. Even if one develops one's own film and scans it (good equipment is expensive)....the cost of 50 foot of color Super 8 is ridiculous and even double 8 Foma Fomapan R100 Black & White Reversal Film is like $30. I like film but few people do. Videos of home movies old or new are pretty much ignored online. It's a fun nostalgic hobby.

[johnthompson]

I bought one of these a month ago, worked fine for 2 weeks. Then after a 2 week hiatus, it kept insisting the card was protected. Somehow, when you inserted the car, it would slide the locking tab back. I could not see anything that was causing it. I exchanged it for another, and now the new one seems to be out of sync somehow, like the sprockets are pulling it back half a frame every so often. I'll try another few spools just in case, but I'm losing faith in this machine and may buy the $400 kodack

[slartiuk]

I decided to go with a projector from eBay and a Lumix G9 with macro lense. I'm then modifying the drive to use a stepper motor to make it a frame at a time advance, shutter release, and now I can have all the custom colour settings I like. Still a work in progress but at least all the mechanics are metal and made for the job.

[patrickcardon]

I went for the Kodak Reels (not Reelz, apparently that was the first gen)... probably from same factory. With current prices plus being in Europe ... that went up to 500€. The control buttons are better and there are more of them, the manual was made by a human, and it takes large reels... however the takeup reel mechanism is pants, every now and then the film stutters (some point to the SD card formatting, some to the film transport mechanism, still investigating myself). What is irritating beyond belief is that automatic color and exposure adjustments on which you barely have a grasp and it is linked to how much you zoom in or out (digital of course, not optical). Been disassembling it to look at mechanics, electronics and camera. Would like to fix some issues and maybe use it as a base to make something better but not too expensive... grandpa (or dad in my case) was indeed no Hitchcock 😁 ... but at 2km of film to digitize still cheaper than sending it to a scanning company

[travelexplorer]

leave it in LOW, and all settings as low as you can and then use Davinci Resolve with Revival and you will like the results

[brianmuhlingBUM]

Thanks for your worthwhile tips on the scanner. I dont think grandpappy's Regular 8mm, gave the scanner a fair test however, other features are a bother such as a fixed 20fps. I shot much of my Regular 8 at 24 fps and all my super 8 at 24fps. Perhaps Premiere could fix the problem. No sound would mean lifting it off with a projctor and recording onto a synchronised 1/4" tape and dubing back in the computer. Does anyone care to comment with some suggestions, and then, what scanner to buy? 😢

[toyguy]

I used one I found it noisy and I found the speed a bit fast had to slow it down a bit and make some minor color corrections

[GJPG]

You say (at 5:27 - took me ages to find it again!) "the scans are mp4 at 1920 by 1440". Could you expand on that a little? Everyone else says 1080p, including the selling page shot you show at 0:25. (I know some of the earlier machines were 720p.)

[notagain]

I know it's time consuming, but would it pay to get a better copy if you could clean to film of dust before copying it? Then ideas how anyone?

[knoptop]

would be cool if they'd make these to also be a film projector, so it could have more use when it's not scanning.

[thecaveofthedead]

That 2007 cellphone video quality footage isn't a solid option for preserving memories. If they're going to be scanned once for posterity, they deserve better than this Christmas cracker image quality.

[jasonzayas]

Bro, low key, your videos slap. You've got a good sense of humor and you deliver useful information. I fux widdit.