Wolverine 8mm and Super 8 Movie Reels to Digital MovieMaker

[MadMikey]

Here's a link to an 8mm film from 1957 I scanned on the Wolverine Film2Digital scanner. Only post that was done was adding the title and credits and correcting the speed. https://youtu.be/JmVBPLZtdJ0
You be the judge.

[daves_films]

Hey MadMikey,
Did you order your unit from alibaba or...?
Alibaba seems to have a pretty wide price range and I was wondering how much you paid.
Thanks

[studiocarter2]

Will it work with Final Cut Pro? What does it look like? Is it really single frame?
Let's see:
This is the dropbox download. It was streached longways and I had to distort it.
https://youtu.be/9XtDYSxgBEc

[Tscan]

I think the results from this machine look fairly decent for what it is... perfect for regular folks who just to watch their old home movies. One thing I have learned about the home movie market is that most people wanting their movies transferred do not have the skills or knowledge to navigate the digital realm involved after the scan these days. Not as cut and dry as handing them a VHS or DVD. Sometimes I'll end up exchanging up to 30 emails just trying to explain codecs and storage devices. This appears to be a simple plug and play unit that people can figure out on their own time.

[MadMikey]

Tuscan I agree, the only wrinkle is that the video it creates is 30 FPS so an editor would be needed to correct the frame rate.

[7OSE9]

Here's a slide version of one of their machines...

https://www.amazon.com/Wolverine-Mighty ... B00O46B7TY

Take JPEG snapshots from your 8mm and Super 8 Reels and recompile into a video. UNIQUE Speed-Load adapters for fast loading of slides & Negatives.

But for this model (I'm interested in the price) is necessary move MANUALLY every single frame of Super 8 or Regular 8? Oh, a huge job!

[RyanH]

I think the results from this machine look fairly decent for what it is... perfect for regular folks who just to watch their old home movies..

Really? I think the compression and artifacting on that is shockingly brutal. I've seen film-to-VHS-to-digital transfers with more sharpness and detail.

If there's anyone out there with access to a bunch of different equipment, it would be incredibly valuable to have the same film scanned with a half dozen different methods. Make it easier to judge what the potential quality differences are.

[Tscan]

I think the results from this machine look fairly decent for what it is... perfect for regular folks who just to watch their old home movies..

Really? I think the compression and artifacting on that is shockingly brutal. I've seen film-to-VHS-to-digital transfers with more sharpness and detail.

If there's anyone out there with access to a bunch of different equipment, it would be incredibly valuable to have the same film scanned with a half dozen different methods. Make it easier to judge what the potential quality differences are.

Even though the compression is pretty bad, untrained eyes tend to look right past it. So many things that we notice will not be noticed by the average consumer.

[Tscan]

I have yet to actually see the Wolverine in person but it doesn't appear to be very heavy duty, actually kind of chintzy. So even though the results are flawed to a degree by our standards, they're still better than I would expect. The only other unit in the consumer price range to speak of is Moviestuff, which blows this thing out of the water. Aside from affordability, they're not even in the same class. But for $300 and not much skill or knowllege required, it's a good way to reach families who posses a couple of old shoe boxes in the 2000ft or less range. Which I'd say are most families. And they appear to be selling. If that inspires more competition and you keep getting better, cheaper technology, who knows what will come along later?

[MadMikey]

I purchased the Wolverine film2digital from Amazon. And yes it works fine with FinalCut Pro. That's what I use to edit.

[ChiefEngr]

I am the [semi] proud owner of the Wolverine Moviemaker and I would like to offer up a few comments.

Several have indicated that it would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison of the same film converted using the MovieMaker and using a more professional film chain unit. Go to YouTube -- there are several enthusiasts who have done just that. Yes, the film chain unit does a much better job, but the Wolverine isn't that bad for $300. If you are loo0king for "Hollywood Quality" then this isn't the device for you. But since many home movies feature bad camera work, bad focus, bad exposure, and horrible composition, this thing does a decent job for the price. If you have average home movies, this will do an average job of converting them. If you have really good home movies, then you probably want something that will give better results.

From what I have been able to gather, the imaging sensor produces a 5MP image which, when you consider that the frame size [for regular 8] is 0.130" x 0.177" (and allowing for 24-bit color) is pretty darn fine resolution. Then they compress the mother-loving crap out of it which is where it all goes wrong. My hunch is that the micro controller that they put in the thing just can't move the raw data from the sensor and to the SD card fast enough. Of course, they could just slow down the conversion speed (which many of the higher quality devices do) so they've got the time to move the data, but since the device is not "autonomous" (ie: you really can't leave it to operate unattended since there are no fail-safes), just how long do you want to be nailed to your chair? It takes about 140 minutes to convert a 200foot reel of 8mm with the present 2 frame-per-second rate. Take that to 1 frame every 2 seconds and you'd be there all day to do a 200' reel.

Hopefully a future software release will offer a slower conversion rate with improved quality. *WE* are not the only folks interested in such a thing so one has to believe that they are looking at it.

I've done about 20 reels so far; I'll be back with a better review in the few weeks.

[lewisham_phil]

I've had my Wolverine a while now, and posted my findings on Amazon reviews, but I thought it might be more use re-iterating them here; particularly regarding one aspect which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere: the pre-set focus of the lens.
I have to say I was initially disappointed in the results: I know the compression artifacts are bad, but it also seemed to be out of focus compared with viewing on an old hand-cranked Yashica fresnel viewer. Even with old, uncleaned film, there didn't seem to be any of the small dust specks or film scratches showing; they were simply blurred out of existence..
I got this second-hand off Ebay (they are not imported into the UK, and I bought this off an American who had brought it over) so with no warranty to lose, I thought I'd have a look under the hood.
The main back comes off easily (though the screws are tight - get the right screwdriver PZ2 I think..), but you also need to get the grey plastic trim cover (that masters the screen) off the front to get access to the lens/camera.
This is held on with a number of small screws on the reverse of the main steel mounting plate, BUT before it will come off you need to pop off the small touch-panel (with the on off button) on the front; this simply unclips (get your thumb nail under the front corner and gently prise up and along). Trust me, the main grey cover will not come off before you remove the control panel: I spent ages trying!
Once the grey plastic is removed, you have direct access to the camera, which has a screw adjustable lens. Sure enough, after a quick play around, it was clear that the lens could be focused much better than the factory set-up. Great, but I now need to re-scan a few hundred feet of film: Thanks Wolverine...
I am now scanning without the grey cover, so that I can keep a check on the focus. As the small screen is not that easy to use to focus, I connected up to an old TV which made life easier. Note that the frame alignment needs re-setting when you re-focus, as there is some concentricity/alignment issue with the threaded adjuster; clearly these are not precision optics.

A few other findings: I had a troublesome Super8 reel which just wouldn't catch on the 'claw' to advance the film. On close inspection, the holes seemed to be set further inboard than other Super8 films that worked fine; just a fraction, but enough to cause a problem. I was envisioning how I was going to trim the edge of the entire reel to get it to work, but the answer was rather easier; by easing the 'standard 8- super8' setting switch slightly over towards standard setting, it moved the claw just enough to be able to scan the film fine.

I have rigged up separate reel holders, like many users, to be able to scan larger reels, with a rubber drive belt onto a pulley directly onto the take-up spindle. This works fine; however, the inertia of a full 7", 400 foot supply reel can cause jarring as it pulls taught. Some users report this as causing juddering and mis-scanning. The trick is to get the film to curve up and down (which effectively acts like a spring, pretty much like at the take-up side where the film goes round a few pegs) before aligning to the scanning inlet. I do this very simply, with a lint free soft cloth, which I wrap very loosely around the film as it comes off the supply reel, supported to guide the film in the correct orientation.

I use 'Film Guard' cleaner/lubricant before hand on all of the reels, using my old Yashica viewer (which has a fast geared hand-wind) to quickly wizz through the film. I also use the Yashica to rewind all the films in general, as this will far extend the life of the machine, which, let's face it, is no heavyweight. On rewind mode, the poor old stepper motor is really going quite frantic! Not good.

This could be a good bit of kit. Better access for basic adjustment, and more control over compression and image processing would make it so much better. How many are out there with poorly focused lenses from the factory??
I would also say that as far as I can see, there is no tamper seal anywhere that would show that the unit has been opened, if anyone is worried about invalidating their warranty. There did appear to be a small amount of black paint on the lens adjustment threads, but it didn't stop the lens adjusting.

[lewisham_phil]

ble
Hopefully I have managed to attach a couple of images, showing the clip-in control panel and the adjustable lens (I have put a dab of tippex on to try and make sure it stays put). The unit works fine without the grey cover, and it probably marginally aids cooling of the innards. You just have to remember which button does what on the control panel...
Rather than dismantling the unit, you can check your focus by viewing a known good, focused frame, or maybe better still a white leader with writing ('Processed by Kodak' on mine which shows the focus fine); Then, with judicious pushing of the film to bow it slightly up or down (there is an air gap beneath the visible frame area) whilst using a toothpick or whatever to help, you can determine if you have an issue.

[camera8mm]

theres a seller on flea bay s korea selling 1080p film2digital units. asked if there were any upgrades besides the 1080p and it was no for an answer. not even a sample clip. anyone get one of the newer 1080p units?

[slackercruster]

That vacation video sample mentioned above looked pretty nice. I'm new to film transfers. I am a still photog and got into 8mm and 16mm by chance. Now I got tone of films to archive. Some of them are from the 30's and having VS issues.

I had 2 Wolverines bot from B&H. Both acted up after 20 something reels. I gave up on it. If you can get a working Wolverine they are pretty nice for the $300 compared to a few thousand $ HD telecine.

Here is a sample I did with the Wolverine.

(nudity, but cute photog related film from 1950's beat era.)

https://archive.org/details/TheFirstTimeIDidIt