Best review yet. Your finished product looks pretty good. Way better than zooming with the machine. I always wondered why everyone's results were crappy. Is there a way you can make the machine just spit out the frames and leave them alone so you can motion jpeg them yourself? Or is there one that does this?
From talking to Wolverine data the answer is no. I have always wondered why they could not program that into the machine as well. I do not know any other machine that can do that but I believe the professional machines can but cost more but that is just a belief I have do not really know.
They need to upgrade the sensor to 4K, change the firmware to allow uncompressed frame capture (or at least a way to adjust the compression in the menu) and add a USB port for recording footage to an external hard drive. Right now, the image sensor looks like it was sourced from a cheap 15 year old cell phone and the compression artifacts make the footage unwatchable. Even if they raise the price to $599 with the upgrades, it would be worth it. They could even make a USB version that harnesses the power of your PC to process the image and control the film transport - that would be the best solution, as long as the image sensor is upgraded.
Same problem on Kodak Reels (probably same factory) .... they even set the focus badly before gluing the focus cap on the little lens. Had to remove the blob to adjust it (a feature they could have left in the final machine). Problem with zooming out is that the automatic adjustment of the scanner can change image to image ... both for exposure as for color adjustments and the results are crappier than zooming in on the unit to limit the changes to exposure and color to the visible area of the film. I hate the digital zoom to do that but the resulting image is way more usable than zooming out. Not even mentioning problems with stuttering video sometimes (as on some Wolverines), the crappy plastic mechanism for the tale up reel (that I disconnected) and the poor image quality ... due to the built-in firmware way more than the lens. Need to compare the quality of the image on the built-in screen (I assume straight from lens) and the image in the MP4 ... doubt I like the result. As for changing the firmware ...
Another useful set of tips for zooming method. Exposure value will depend upon how the film was originally exposed. But was slightly confused in video where commantary said try exposure setting zero, but video text showed exposure value as +0.5. Please can you clarify?
I was trying to show that because the machine darkens the film a little even thou they were both copied in +.5. I used +.5 because it gave the best picture for that specific scene. I usually copy in +0 first and change the lighting if a film needs it by copying the film in the machine again. I know this is time consuming it means I always have a +0 film but sometimes I have a +0 and another copy at a different setting that may be darker or lighter. The Wolverine version may look a little clearer or sharper than the version zoomed with video studio Pro. This is because darker images can appear clearer. Darker images appear to the my eyes anyway to add contrast. If I darken the VIdeo Studio Pro picture in its software to equal the lighting to the Wolverine the clarity will look the same. if I wanted I could have darkened the Video Studio Pro a little in the software but I wanted to compare them exactly as they come out of the machine. I found out after I uploaded the film you really could not tell much difference in the pictures because TH-cam changes the film when they compress the file for their servers. My bottom line point was, it does not make much difference which method you use to zoom. The Wolverine Machine to zoom or video software to zoom once you change the lighting to equal the machines lighting the picture will look almost identical.
You lost me at the end when you started talking about "clkcking on cards" and you didn't explain what the .5 exposure adjustment was all about. And, I don't know what you mean at the end when you said the zoomed out and then crop in (in post) was much harder some how. I don't get what you mean by that. Do you mean taking the additional step to edit the film afterwards? Or, are you talking about some sort of mechanical, time-consuming frame-by-frame process?
Ik heb na een tijd ondervonden dat de camera van de scanner helemaal niet goed was afgesteld. Dus openmaken en de lens goed bijregelen, een wereld van verschil! De lijm was makkelijk te breken.
@@super8tovideo After a while I found that the camera of the scanner was not properly adjusted at all. So opening it up and adjusting the lens properly, makes a world of difference! The glue broke easily.
Bonjour quel logiciel de montage utilisé vous ? Merci
thanks!!
Best review yet. Your finished product looks pretty good. Way better than zooming with the machine. I always wondered why everyone's results were crappy. Is there a way you can make the machine just spit out the frames and leave them alone so you can motion jpeg them yourself? Or is there one that does this?
From talking to Wolverine data the answer is no. I have always wondered why they could not program that into the machine as well. I do not know any other machine that can do that but I believe the professional machines can but cost more but that is just a belief I have do not really know.
They need to upgrade the sensor to 4K, change the firmware to allow uncompressed frame capture (or at least a way to adjust the compression in the menu) and add a USB port for recording footage to an external hard drive. Right now, the image sensor looks like it was sourced from a cheap 15 year old cell phone and the compression artifacts make the footage unwatchable. Even if they raise the price to $599 with the upgrades, it would be worth it. They could even make a USB version that harnesses the power of your PC to process the image and control the film transport - that would be the best solution, as long as the image sensor is upgraded.
Same problem on Kodak Reels (probably same factory) .... they even set the focus badly before gluing the focus cap on the little lens. Had to remove the blob to adjust it (a feature they could have left in the final machine). Problem with zooming out is that the automatic adjustment of the scanner can change image to image ... both for exposure as for color adjustments and the results are crappier than zooming in on the unit to limit the changes to exposure and color to the visible area of the film. I hate the digital zoom to do that but the resulting image is way more usable than zooming out. Not even mentioning problems with stuttering video sometimes (as on some Wolverines), the crappy plastic mechanism for the tale up reel (that I disconnected) and the poor image quality ... due to the built-in firmware way more than the lens. Need to compare the quality of the image on the built-in screen (I assume straight from lens) and the image in the MP4 ... doubt I like the result. As for changing the firmware ...
Another useful set of tips for zooming method. Exposure value will depend upon how the film was originally exposed. But was slightly confused in video where commantary said try exposure setting zero, but video text showed exposure value as +0.5. Please can you clarify?
I was trying to show that because the machine darkens the film a little even thou they were both copied in +.5. I used +.5 because it gave the best picture for that specific scene. I usually copy in +0 first and change the lighting if a film needs it by copying the film in the machine again. I know this is time consuming it means I always have a +0 film but sometimes I have a +0 and another copy at a different setting that may be darker or lighter. The Wolverine version may look a little clearer or sharper than the version zoomed with video studio Pro. This is because darker images can appear clearer. Darker images appear to the my eyes anyway to add contrast. If I darken the VIdeo Studio Pro picture in its software to equal the lighting to the Wolverine the clarity will look the same. if I wanted I could have darkened the Video Studio Pro a little in the software but I wanted to compare them exactly as they come out of the machine. I found out after I uploaded the film you really could not tell much difference in the pictures because TH-cam changes the film when they compress the file for their servers. My bottom line point was, it does not make much difference which method you use to zoom. The Wolverine Machine to zoom or video software to zoom once you change the lighting to equal the machines lighting the picture will look almost identical.
You lost me at the end when you started talking about "clkcking on cards" and you didn't explain what the .5 exposure adjustment was all about. And, I don't know what you mean at the end when you said the zoomed out and then crop in (in post) was much harder some how. I don't get what you mean by that. Do you mean taking the additional step to edit the film afterwards? Or, are you talking about some sort of mechanical, time-consuming frame-by-frame process?
Ik heb na een tijd ondervonden dat de camera van de scanner helemaal niet goed was afgesteld. Dus openmaken en de lens goed bijregelen, een wereld van verschil! De lijm was makkelijk te breken.
Sorry I only understand English
@@super8tovideo After a while I found that the camera of the scanner was not properly adjusted at all. So opening it up and adjusting the lens properly, makes a world of difference! The glue broke easily.
Same problem on my Kodak Reels ... the adjustable focus would have been a nice feature to leave in the finished product