@@frankwagner2161 The wolverine scans at 960x720. When converting from 4x3 aspect ratio to 16x9, the 960 horizontal resolution is preserved, but the vertical resolution gets cropped down to 540. So you end up with 540p when you are done (960x540), slightly better than SD.
I saw a video showing to NOT zoom with the Wolverine and do the crop later in post editing. This makes a huge difference. The video with the digital zoom of the converter is riddled with compression artifacts. The video with no zoom is virtually artifact free.
Are you sure you're not seeing film grain instead of compression artefacts? I ask because I see people complaining all the time that scanned small-format film has digital noise, but looking at their scans I just see normal film grain, which is part of the deal. The sharper your scan, the more grain you see, and ditto for zooming into a small part of the image. Seems to me the younger folk blame anything they don't like on digital flaws, but have no experience with film.
Sure there is. Play the super 8 film on a screen and video it with your digital camera. I did it. Results were excellent and if you set your digital camera correctly.....no flicker.
BTW this equipment is not needed with today's software. Once the original 4;3 film is transferred digitally....there is a plethora of software (Pinnacle for example) that can crop any 4;3 image to 16:9 and that software can sharpen, color correct, brighten, darken....whatever you want. Cost of the software is under $100.
@@johnclaba1457 Thanks John for the heads up. I used that technique many years ago with still photographs before computers and scanners and digital cameras :-))) I think I will leave the transfer to a professional, last time I tried to view the celluloid I burnt a hole through it loosing a couple of frames :-)) Since I made the comment I started collecting and using analogue cameras again in addition to my digital camera. I think I have 80+ cameras of all shapes and sizes. Thanks for taking the time, cheers. Greetings from Wales.
@@ianwilkinson4602I am strictly a digital guy....4K Sony 4K cam and Nikon 850D DSLR.....my son bought a Super 8mm camera recently....Canon 1014. He is getting into the hobby and with us spending a month in Greece this summer...I am sure he will put it to good use. We usually create a movie at the end of our vacations...Will be very interesting with the inclusion of the Super 8 footage. Looking forward to it. Stay safe and cheers back to you.
Personally I would rather keep my 8mm captures at 4:3. I don't want to lose any of the content. Besides, if the shooter gave any consideration to composition at all, then cropping to 16:9 would negate that effort.
I prefer original composition as well, but some folks want their transfers to fill up the whole screen on their TV without bars on the side, so I made this vid for those people.
Most film makers compensate for widescreen. I do it all the time when I am shooting. I dont want bars on the sides of my tv screen. It looks tacky. You may disagree....but I dont want my film looking like a home movie....I want it looking like professionally shot film.
@@johnclaba1457 what I meant was, the 8mm film I transferred was shot ages ago, composed for 4x3. So I want to keep it that way. If I shot something today on 8mm I would consider composing for 16x9.
It should be noted that when the 720p videos are converted to widescreen, the resolution drops below HD.
How much of a drop?
@@frankwagner2161 The wolverine scans at 960x720. When converting from 4x3 aspect ratio to 16x9, the 960 horizontal resolution is preserved, but the vertical resolution gets cropped down to 540. So you end up with 540p when you are done (960x540), slightly better than SD.
@@ThriftyAV That is a no wayer for me. I dont want film quality dropping below 720p. Looks horrible on a big screen.
@@johnclaba1457 There are scanners (including the Wolverine brand) that do 1080p. But I wouldn't do this cropping anyway.
Very nice, tight presentation.
Thank you. I consider my viewer's time important, so I try to keep things concise.
I saw a video showing to NOT zoom with the Wolverine and do the crop later in post editing. This makes a huge difference. The video with the digital zoom of the converter is riddled with compression artifacts. The video with no zoom is virtually artifact free.
Are you sure you're not seeing film grain instead of compression artefacts? I ask because I see people complaining all the time that scanned small-format film has digital noise, but looking at their scans I just see normal film grain, which is part of the deal. The sharper your scan, the more grain you see, and ditto for zooming into a small part of the image. Seems to me the younger folk blame anything they don't like on digital flaws, but have no experience with film.
this is all well and good, provided you can afford this sort of equipment. Is there an analogue method available?
Sure there is. Play the super 8 film on a screen and video it with your digital camera. I did it. Results were excellent and if you set your digital camera correctly.....no flicker.
BTW this equipment is not needed with today's software. Once the original 4;3 film is transferred digitally....there is a plethora of software (Pinnacle for example) that can crop any 4;3 image to 16:9 and that software can sharpen, color correct, brighten, darken....whatever you want. Cost of the software is under $100.
@@johnclaba1457 Thanks John for the heads up. I used that technique many years ago with still photographs before computers and scanners and digital cameras :-))) I think I will leave the transfer to a professional, last time I tried to view the celluloid I burnt a hole through it loosing a couple of frames :-)) Since I made the comment I started collecting and using analogue cameras again in addition to my digital camera. I think I have 80+ cameras of all shapes and sizes. Thanks for taking the time, cheers. Greetings from Wales.
@@ianwilkinson4602I am strictly a digital guy....4K Sony 4K cam and Nikon 850D DSLR.....my son bought a Super 8mm camera recently....Canon 1014. He is getting into the hobby and with us spending a month in Greece this summer...I am sure he will put it to good use. We usually create a movie at the end of our vacations...Will be very interesting with the inclusion of the Super 8 footage. Looking forward to it. Stay safe and cheers back to you.
Personally I would rather keep my 8mm captures at 4:3. I don't want to lose any of the content. Besides, if the shooter gave any consideration to composition at all, then cropping to 16:9 would negate that effort.
I prefer original composition as well, but some folks want their transfers to fill up the whole screen on their TV without bars on the side, so I made this vid for those people.
Most film makers compensate for widescreen. I do it all the time when I am shooting. I dont want bars on the sides of my tv screen. It looks tacky. You may disagree....but I dont want my film looking like a home movie....I want it looking like professionally shot film.
@@johnclaba1457 what I meant was, the 8mm film I transferred was shot ages ago, composed for 4x3. So I want to keep it that way. If I shot something today on 8mm I would consider composing for 16x9.