Hi Jeff,

Here is the link to the one that I purchased, the Pro model, 1080P, though not through Amazon. Look at the comments by Steve H. I wouldn't purchase the older version 720P, but so far, I find the 1080P to be very good.

There is a slight problem with the left spindle being lower than it should be and some emulsion or gunk comes off there. This can be avoided by not using the spindle. I'll have to do some tests both ways. I did scan with and without going around this spindle, but I didn't do the same film both ways.

https://www.amazon.ca/Wolverine-Digital-MovieMaker-Digitizer-MM100PRO/dp/B0785H3FGN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544276483&sr=8-1&keywords=wolverine+8mm

I purchased through B&H New York, as Wolverine does not ship internationally. I see that the price on Amazon has dropped a hundred dollars Canadian, but that is still about 100 CAD more than I paid. Including import duties (prepaid), it was 581 CAD vs 670 CAD with Amazon (import duty may be applicable on that).

I don't know that I would want to do this professionally.

I can't find the splicer gadget that I think I had for 8mm, but I have tape. Making splices by hand is not that great, but it at least allows me to splice on a leader or fix a break. Some of these old reels were abused by the projector - chewed up parts at the beginning, ripped sprocket holes, film breaks. I managed to a section that had been folded by the projector, through the Wolverine successfully but with slight distortions on some frames. Better than nothing, assuming that the images are interesting.

I am not equipped to fix sprocket hole damage and I just try to get the film through the gate by stopping, advancing a few frames past the damage, and then continuing on.

I am equipped for splicing Super 8, both with glue and tape, assuming that the 40+ year old glue still works.

One of the complaints is about splices sometimes causing a jam. This depends on the quality of the splices. I have now scanned 28 - 50ft reels and only had one problem with the splice half way through. The original reels are 25 ft. After getting through that, one had to turn the reel over whilst trying to avoid exposing the film to daylight. The film was split down the middle during processing and the ends spliced together, thus the half-way splice. Splices that I made years ago on the 8mm film are usually problematic. I haven't tested the Super 8 ones with the cement splices yet. I have had some problems with breaks, usually near the beginning, not caused by the machine. This is why it's good to run the film through an editor - to check for damage and clean at the same time.

The next thing is cleaning. I'm not equipped for this either. My old Goko Editor Viewer has a cleaning attachment, but the liquid (2.22 I think) evaporated years ago. I've been scanning without cleaning. Most of the reels have probably only seen a projector once or twice, so I haven't seen much dust and no mildew. I'm still looking for an appropriate cleaning-lubricating fluid.

My father's camera was an old Kodak. We had to guess at the aperture settings, manually. So, there are some reels overexposed, underexposed, sections that are black, sections that are completely light. My brother-in-law's camera was much better, and it shows. But, I have reels that are yellowish, redish and blueish.

The scans are quite grainy. Even looking at the little screen you can see this. However, some that were properly exposed are better, but still need fixing, hence the need for Neat Video.

Now for the editing. Cut out bad parts, fix the white balance, exposure, colour, etc. In my case, the reels often contain different subject matter, so they will be cut, labelled, documented and then put in the appropriate movie. I'm still trying to master this process. VPX and its Project Folder are a must. Clips can be placed in folders in the Project folder by subject, the names changed and/or description added. Then I can export the project folder, import it into a new project and put the clips from each folder into its own movie, or something like that. I have been making projects of 15 movies, 1 reel per movie, as a start. I'm also keeping a spreadsheet of the reel numbers, content and year, and problems that I may have had. Sometimes I have more than one file for a reel due to breaks or damaged sprocket holes. I number all of the reels and use that as the prefix for the filename. The Wolverine just gives a date and time filename, so I add the prefix manually.

Here is a link to the second reel that I scanned and edited. I quickly threw in some music to make it less boring. I was not very successful with Neat Video in the second half and there is still a lot of grain showing. I'll try again. I just wanted to get it up quickly so that my sister could see what I am doing.

John CB

Hi John.

Many thanks indeed for all of that post!  It was especially "helpful" to see the results of the transfer to digital of that footage.

From my quite limited research so far it appears that, as you say, Wolverine do not ship outside USA/Canada, although Amazon UK offers this, but am not at all sure that actually is a Wolverine model and the reviews are less than complimentary!

It seems that in Europe, the equivalent manufacturer to Wolverine (perhaps even the same manufacturer, different name) is Reflecta, Amazon page here. I can actually buy that model at an even better price than Amazon so am sorely tempted!

Will let you know what I eventually decide to do.

Regards,
Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I like the Reflecta. The wheel on the left side is properly located, whereas the one on the Wolverine is not, but I suspect that this was done to allow larger diameter reels on the Pro version, up to 9 inches. Looking at the right side, the Reflecta 3-wheel disposition is the same as the older version of the Woverine (720p), which probably means that the size of the take up reel is limited to 5 inches. This could pose a problem if you receive films on larger reels. I have a bunch of 7 and 8 inch reels.

Other than a slight difference in shape, I can't see any difference between the two machines. The various parts are probably identical.

I see that Reflecta has a cleaning liquid. It sounds like the right stuff. The other thing is a splicer for 8 and Super 8 film. The best would be with glue, not tape. Either way, you'll need to be able to splice both types. Watch some videos on cleaning and repairing film. Also, a roll of each type of leader may come in handy.

My splicer, now about 40 years old, is a Hähnel Motor Auto-Kolmatic Super 8. I see that there are images and videos of this on the web. Unfortunately, it doesn't do 8mm. The glue is Agfa Cinecol film cement.

My editor, for viewing, cleaning, marking film is a Goko Viewer Editor Dual 8. Optional but very handy if you want to clean and check the reels for damage. I see that there is one ebay for sale.

The next part is harder - Super 8 Sound. My method will be to run the film through the projector and capture the sound on the computer and at the same time record both image and sound with my camera. I have an Optex video transfer machine that uses a mirror and screen. The quality of the recorded image, of course, is not as good as the scan. Then I can use the camera AV recording and with the audio recording and the scanned file to line up the sound.

Let me know if you have any questions on this.

Regards,

John

I myself (in Europe/Germany) had tested the recording from a Screen - not thinking about fps :-))

The results a useable.

I have seen the relecta machine at the "photokina" - in my opinion very expensive and very very slow.

My decision  at last was to use a comercial offer.

Look here.

and off topic

my last Video...

Have a good Xmas time :-))

@wabu

Hi Walter,

Excellent videos! Thank you.

I analyzed the price and looked at tests that some people had done comparing commercial with the Wolverine before and after adjustments in a video editor. I was going to take a some films in for commercial processing, just to have a reference, and I may still do so.

As for the cost, it depends on how much you have to do, and how much time you have. I'm mostly retired, so the only time problem is the deadline. As for the quality, many of the 8mm film are very bad and will need a lot of care, which I doubt that the commercial processor would do. The machine cost 581. The lowest cost commercial processor here is Costco at 0.15$ Canadian/foot. A standard 50ft reel would cost 8.65$ Can including tax. Thus, my breakeven point is 69 reels. I have the equivalent of 59 - 8 mm reel. I have no idea yet about the Super 8, but it's at least the equivalent of more than 100. In the last week, I have scanned 39, when I have been around to do so.

Your video is all Super 8, is this correct? Did you have any regular 8 mm done? Results?

With your Super 8, I didn't notice if you had sound as everything seemed to be overdubbed, including the ocean waves. Did you have Super 8 with sound? Was the sound also transferred by the commercial processor?

@emmrecs

For both of you, my old transfer system is an Optex VS619. I'll post a clip of the result with just this. My projector is Super 8 only, so a few years ago I bought an 8mm projector at a flea market. Viewing the 8mm films was not very successful, so I decided that the only feasible way would be scanning.

As mentioned, I'll use this mainly to transfer the sound, and then to line up the sound with the scanned version.

John CB

Your video is all Super 8, is this correct?

yes

Did you have any regular 8 mm done?

no (I am too young :-)))

I started in 1963 to become a photograph - and when I remember right

at this  time (1965) Super 8 come into the market.

my first movie was done in 1972

Hi Guys

I made an amazing discovery sparked by this discussion, that Kodak have started making Super8 film cameras again along with modern film stocks in cassettes. It has an LCD screen viewfinder and records sound to an SD card. It utilizes C-mount lenses as used on surveillance cameras. Crazy but cool!

Peter

I worked for a lot of years in a company making photochemistry.

We were a small company and Kodak the big big company.

At the day we distributed Kodak chemistry in Germany - it was clear: the end of the analogous photographiy.

I retiered some years ago - this old company have many problems to survive.

Now they have the idea to restart with b/w chemestry for young people and nerds.

In my opinion: yes - there is a market for Kodak (and my company Tetenal) but it is a small one

@browj2, @wabu, @Scenestealer

Hi everyone

. . . . Now they have the idea to restart with b/w chemestry for young people and nerds . . . .

There has been a trend over the last 6 - 8 years of bringing back film processing and wet chemistry for Media and Photography courses in education.

I started in photography at the tender age of 11 - I am the 3rd generation of photographer in my family and was processing my own films and prints by the age of 13, using my grandfathers equipment and Tetenal wet chemistry. I taught digital photography for many years and, IMHO, there are areas where digital photography and video just do not 'cut it' and film still reigns supreme.

Would I go back to film - probably not - even though I still have a small collection of working film cameras ranging from a 'James Bond' spy camera to a Minolta 7000

John EB

Hi all

My dad had a darkroom setup in the pantry with an enlarger he had made himself. My brother and I and friends would spend many happy hours in there, sloshing around with developer and fixer doing our own developing and prints.

You are right Walter, there will always be a market for the few who want to do something that might give them something "different". Look at the current revival of vinyl records for instance.

Peter

Update:

I have now finished digitizing all (I hope) of my 8mm and Super 8 Sound films. I had previously finished, was sure that some were missing, and found another half dozen big reels in several drawers. There was quite a bit more than I had originally calculated, so this made the purchase of the Wolverine more cost-effective. I even spliced together a bunch of odds and ends that were trimmed when I spliced together (edited) many reels over 40 years ago. There is some interesting material in these, some of which I didn't even know I had filmed.

The Wolverine worked very well for the most part, even passing over most splices, but occasionally stuttering/stopping. Most of the problems were with film that was cut slightly oversize or thinner or thicker or something from regular Kodak film. Sticking a folded up piece of paper under the lid over the sprockets usually did the trick.

Now for the editing part and trying to create some interesting movies.

I am trying to master Neat Video and I went through the video tutorials. This is a "must" and I will have to review a couple of them again. Often the results are too smooth, with a plastic look. For some, I used HitFilm Grain Removal, which did an acceptable job. But, where there was a lot of dust, Neat Video took care of most of it. Most amazing!

As for the work flow, I adjust the speed, trim and sequence clips, adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, then colour correction. I have been using the scopes to assist. Then I use Neat Video or HitFilm Grain Removal.

There are cases where I will need to do some stabilization and I will probably do this after rendering out to mxv format and using that, since Neat Video slows down processing to a couple of frames per second. There was some discussion on the Neat Video forum about which to do first, Neat Video or stabilization, as one may affect the other. Some testing is required.

Of course, there is more, transitions, titles, music, adding in photos, finding the names of people, etc.

As for the audio with the Super 8 Sound, my method allows me to get very close, but the projector runs slightly off-speed, so cutting and stretching of the audio is required.

I had overdubbed some of the S8 Sound film with music. The quality is usually terrible so I'll have to hunt down some of my old vinyl records that I had used at the time, and digitize them.

Too much to do, not enough time.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

. . . . Neat Video took care of most of it. Most amazing . . . .

It is an amazing program - I just recently had to upgrade to the Pro version to work on some video taken in very poor light. The standard version does not handle 4K video - it only works to a maximum of 1920 x 1080 and on 4K affects the central portion only.

John EB

Thank you for mentioning Neat Video. I've just tried it out and I think I'll get the Pro version. I was really impressed with the demo version I tried even though so far I've only used the auto mode.

@CubeAce

 I don't think you will be in any way disappointed with Neat Video! 😀😀

I use both it and Neat Image, the version for still pictures, quite regularly. The results are quite outstanding, IMO, though the length of time it can add to a video Export can be considerable! But it is well worth the wait!

Jeff

@emmrecs

Weirdly, at the moment it isn't adding much in the way of additional export time on my machine which is woefully slow anyway. It seems to be able to use my Nvidia graphics card quite nicely and conversion within MEP itself is quite quick compared to other effects in MEP. I was afraid it would make any image soft as a result but it seems to keep that aspect of it well under control. Of course, the trial package doesn't even do 1080p across the whole frame but it's great for evaluation.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray,

I have the Pro version and it is definitely worth it for cleaning up videos shot in low-light with a lot of noise, VHS imports, and, as per my post, digitized 8mm and Super 8 film. It has limitations, like trying to clean up a video of someone on gravel or sand. That is a tough one. Other than that, wow!

My 11 minute video (1080p) of mostly 8mm edited film took just over 4 hours to export to mxv yesterday. My computer is not very fast, but this gives an idea as to what you can be in for when you use Neat Video, even though your first test was fast. All of the 8mm clips had been trimmed, some were cropped, all were colour-corrected, and all had grain cleaned up with either Neat Video or HitFilm grain removal. I used Mercalli V4 on several clips, and I had 24 transitions. Several transitions were Pixelan SpiceMaster or DissolveMaster, some were simple X-Fades, and a few glides. I also had 5 imports of videos (5-7 seconds each) done with BluffTitler. No audio.

My first export was a failure. The transitions were absolutely terrible. I removed all of the transitions, noting where and what they were, and re-exported for another 4 hours plus (overnight). That worked. However, I am not happy with a couple of the NV clips. I should have noticed this before exporting. Now I can cut up and create my transitions and they should work. I did a test first, of course.

So, for the work flow, do all trimming, sizing, brightness/contrast/gamma, colour correction first, before doing Neat Video. Then do stabilization, if necessary. Export to mxv. Import and do transitions and anything else, including titles; you don't want to find an error in a title in the mxv file at this point.

Alternatively, trim, size and then do NV, export to mxv, import and continue editing. Do the exports in segments (ranges) of a minute or two, not the whole thing in case there are problems.

I'll be more careful with the next 8mm project.

@emmrecs

Hi Jeff,

I'll try out Neat Image. I have many scanned images that will need to be processed. I use PaintShop Pro 2019, usually with Athentec Perfectly Clear 3 or Topaz Adjust or Detail.

I was thinking of dust removal, but I presume that NI doesn't do this. NV does because it can compare several images. The guy who scanned hundreds of my old slides didn't bother to air blow or brush the dust off, and he doesn't want to do it again. I should fire me, I mean him.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John.

I was thinking of dust removal, but I presume that NI doesn't do this

Interesting question! I don't have an image to test this with. Can you attach one of your "dusty" scans, or dropbox it, or whatever, and let me have a look at it with Neat Image?

Jeff

@emmrecs

Hi Jeff,

Here are a few slides that should be easy with dust on the photo in the sky, not to be confused with actual dust in the sky from the Harmattan, which occurs between the end of November and the middle of March and is characterized by the dry and dusty northeasterly trade wind, of the same name, which blows from the Sahara Desert over West Africa, or the dirt on the ground.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmmk7yrol6accew/May0009.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yvz21x84chuxalf/May0012.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9hdf0f60xhay5dm/scan0572.jpg?dl=0

I can see that I need to crop the right side of the first slide, and maybe a little bit of the second, and the top of the third one. These are all as scanned.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John.

Thanks for these. All downloaded and will test NI with them tomorrow (about to log off, it's 20:00 hours here).

Jeff

@emmrecs

Hi Jeff,

No problem.

I wasn't able to remove the dust with Neat Image, but it did improve the image. Here is my cleanup job done in PaintShop Pro, after cropping, resizing to 1920x1080, and straightening, manual dust removal from the sky, Neat Image - mostly some sharpening, and Perfectly Clear 3 - colour improvement.

Original:

Modified:

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

I have NI Pro Plug in for Photoshop, though I don't have PS but run the plug in Affinity Photo, and no, my initial tests suggest that it does not see "dust" as noise. I will investigate further later because I'm pretty sure I remember some discussion on the Neat Support Forum about the problem of how to remove dust.

Jeff