Scanning 8mm/Super8 Home Videos

[deleted user]

Yeah fair. Here's what Google Translate has to say:
"SUPER 8 VERSION
SPANISH EDITION, SO SOME SCENES ARE MISSING, AUDIO IN ITALIAN
1 COIL OF 180 METERS AND ONE OF 400 METERS
FILM WITH DOMINATE AND JOINTS
MAGNETIC AUDIO IN ITALIAN EXCELLENT
RETURNS ARE NOT ACCEPTED"

If you're really considering it, maybe just send him a message through ebay to find out.

[LucasGodzilla]

If you're really considering it, maybe just send him a message through ebay to find out.

Yeah, I sent him a message and unfortunately, it seems to be completely faded.

[alleycat]

I'm a little late but that Don't Torture A Duckling was insanely cheap! One thing I don't get - if it's Italian language how can it be a Spanish version - did it have burnt in subtitles for example?

So is the print completely un-salvageable? To be honest I don't know much about Super 8 but pretty much every one I've seen has that pink/red shine over the picture, could that be toned down during restoration?

Some of these Super 8 prints are very expensive, there is a trailer of City of the Living Dead (just a trailer) on ebay now for €110. I did also find a copy of Mountain of the Cannibal God on three reels on facebook for €130 - no idea if it's still there though but I've messaged the seller to see.

[deleted user]

@LucasGodzilla

Ah too bad.

@alleycat

Hmm good question, I must have overread the part where it said that.

There's things you can do to compensate fading, but it depends on how strong the fading is and you're likely not getting perfection unless you did some serious science like analyzing the spectrum of the film and then doing some advanced math and crazy shit like that I imagine. heh

Purely theoretically it should be possible to perfectly compensate fading I think. Practically, at least from my amateurish perspective, its extremely hard or close to impossible. It might be possible to get something watchable though. How accurate that would be - who knows.

Yeah I've noticed. I also saw a trailer for Hitchcock's Vertigo go for 50 EUR, was a bit surprised about that. But I kinda doubt all those hyper expensive ones ever sell. Some sellers just don't realize that their stuff isn't as valuable as they think it is.

[LucasGodzilla]

So is the print completely un-salvageable? To be honest I don't know much about Super 8 but pretty much every one I've seen has that pink/red shine over the picture, could that be toned down during restoration?

Well, in theory, I'm sure if one were to Dr. Dre color match the faded frames to unfaded ones from, say, a blu-ray restoration or something, then I'm sure something good'll come out of it. Unfortunately though, the only reason I particularly cared about what Don't Torture A Duckling looked like on Super 8 was merely for the print colors (thus, why bother if it's gonna be colored back to a blu-ray?). There'd only be very few scenarios I imagine where it'd be worth going through that effort, like perhaps scanning a faded print of a movie only available in SD or something.

[zoidberg]

Regarding the OP, it's a case of the customer is always right. For a lot of people out there who just want their old cine films watchable on modern technology (DVDs or maybe computer file) then one of those wolverine scanners is going to tick all the boxes. Most 8mm home movies dare I say it aren't going to benefit from a high quality professional scan in the same way someone shooting with modern negative stocks, good lenses and the better pressure plate, or someone wanting to archive high quality optical reduction prints will.

I remember on OT a long time ago poita was able to pull the blues out of a faded eastman of ESB by capturing at something like 16bit RGB (maybe higher). Unless the print is completely red there will be some cyan layer left and the high dynamic range of the scan can get it back. However you'll struggle to get the original timing back without a reference.

A lot of 8mm collectors screen faded films with a blue filter over the lens. There is also a process that can be done in Italy that claims to restore the faded cyan layer, however it works better with certain stocks and not at all with others. There are threads on the old 8mmforum about the process.

[deleted user]

If anyone is going to be happy with a Wolverine scan it's probably because they don't realize how good it *could* look. Just to give you an idea how awful Wolverines and the likes are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA3Vn5Auh5w

I mean, I'm not saying that it has to be an absolutely perfect 4K scan, but to not have clipping and crushed shadows all over the place, a hot spot, absolutely awful colors and not even a steady image (something any basic projector can do!) could imo only be satisfying to someone who grew up with VHS quality and thinks that's as good as it will ever get in digital.

That image on the right side is a more expensive Reflecta model. Imo it's still not good at all, but with that one at least I can see how someone could say "yeah that's good enough for me". With the cheap units on the left side, I can't.

[Kynch]

So, Tom, how much post-processing is necessary when using the Reflecta S8+? I'd say it looks "pretty good".

Considering I'm trying to scan home movies, I would obviously want to get the most information out of it. There must be a point where the print is either too old, faded or damaged, to actually get anything more out of it. It's a difficult decision, and I guess I would always hate myself for not getting the most out of the print.

[deleted user]

I haven't used either of these, I looked at online examples. And I have a suspicion that one of my own scans that I paid for got done on the S8+ since it looks very similar and while it was *okay* for just getting an idea of what's on the print, I wasn't really satisfied with it. The dynamic range is also limited and from what I know, you only get jpegs out of the machine. Those jpegs also are apparently upscaled. So while it claims to be HD, it actually is only around DVD quality.

Well, it depends how they were filmed. What film stock, what kind of lens etc. Since my scanner doesnt work yet, I dont have enough experience to tell the quality of typical home movies, but I have ordered quite a few home movies from ebay, so I will be doing a lot of tests. But just to see the potential of a good super 8 film stock, look at the examples I posted earlier.

Same goes for colors, mostly film stock related. Some film stocks fade, but others don't. For example Kodachrome doesn't fade except through projection (light or possibly infrared energy passing through it?) Meaning that it will keep the color even after a century. Well, it hasn't been out for a century (yet), so I can't say for sure, but it's been out for over 80 years and all the old kodachrome stuff from 1935+ still looks fantastic color wise.

Damaged ... well, it again depends what kind of damage. If it was well stored and not projected every day, there's no reason why it couldn't be in good enough state. There's also film cutting machines that can help you fix bad splices, sprocket holes etc.

Another thing to note about sharpness, ironically - the fact that they are home movies might actually mean that their quality/resolution might be higher than for commercial super 8 films, since they are the original instead of a n-th generation copy. For example if you compare some original 35mm negatives to a final cinema print, you'll realize how much resolution the print lost along the way. I imagine the same is true for Super 8. But home movies are the one and only original, 1st generation, I think there's a lot of potential there, at least in theory.

Sadly I can't say in detail how much to expect from your home movies, but I will definitely come back to this once I have had the chance to do some testing myself.

[zoidberg]

The sharpness of super 8mm is dependant on the optics (lens/focus, plus that pressure plate) and the stock, obviously slower speed should yield a finer grain structure. Negative and reversal film are very different beasts though so direct comparisons are tricky, a fast negative will probably still have finer grain than a slow reversal stock, along with the extra latitude for exposure.
Optical Reduction Prints, such as the full length feature films released by Derann to name but one, are capable of very high quality because they 'print down' from 35/16mm negatives.

Kodachrome (RIP) was a dye-transfer stock and it's colours are very stable. However the acetate base and the emulsion layer can still deteriorate if stored poorly. Acetate can get brittle, warp etc. but there are chemicals that can recondition the film. And of course there's Filmguard which can clean and lubricate film but crucially mask scratches in the base for 'wet gate' style projection/scanning.

As I mentioned before the Wolverine seems to be 'good enough' for a lot of people. The fact that it's rebranded by many other sellers implies that it sells well. The actual principle of it (a self-contained standalone frame by frame scanner) appeals to many so it's cornered that part of the market. There are other scanners available for much higher prices, most require a PC to use as well as additional post-processing of the captured footage which will be a turn-off to many. And then you have professional film transfer services which can be expensive if you have a large amount of footage to digitize (and aren't always using great equipment).

Over on 8mmforum there are a number of forum members who are basically reverse engineering the Wolverine in an effort to upgrade it. Better mechanics, light source, better camera, bypassing the crappy MP4 encoder etc.