Hi Pops, I already AM 78 and waiting delivery of a Kodak machine... My films were copied from projections into 1080P off movie screens without flicker, most of the time. They served me well. This machine hopefully will do better.
Tedd, one comment. The camera that the Kodak is using has more megapixels than the Wolverine pro so some of the specs are much better. When you transfer with the Wolverine or the Kodak you shouldn't "zoom in" to the picture to frame it correctly. When you "zoom in" you are losing pixels (quality of the picture). You should "zoom out" and you will notice a difference. You can correct this later with software and you won't lose the picture quality. This zoom feature is not optical it is just a digital zoom (digital zooms on this or any camera is just expanding the image and any defects that are in the picture).
First I ran standard film as it was filmed in 1967. NO zoom. Your statement is not for me. I'm 78 years old and learned this 40 years ago. Megapixels are crazy today. It depends on the reviewer. However, This is a sensor, not a LENS. The point here is you don't want to buy and own this machine. Period.
Surely, if the output file is at 1080p, then the sensor having more pixels is irrelevant: if the whole machine only gives you 1080p, then you're not going to get better than 1080p. I don't know why they _use_ a sensor with more, if they're going to reduce it to 1080 anyway. (Yes, it will be better than the 720p models, like the basic Wolverine/Reflecta/etc.)
That was the right thing to do. Buy a Magnasonic FS81 from Walmart online. If you don't like it, they have a good return policy. I love mine does a great job, all the time.
Thanks. I have a newly purchased Wolverine Pro and was interested in seeing if the video quality would be getter using this machine. My price threshold was the $400 I paid for the Wolverine Pro and looks like that is as good as it gets for that price range. I will, however, download the DiVinci software you spoke of and play around with it to see if I can color correct or otherwise improve on the movie scans. Happy Birthday. I just turned 75 on the 20th.
In DaVinci Resolve Studio you can do anything. Remove dust, remove scratches, color enhance and many more. It cost $299 list. It's Excellent and you own it. No monthly fee and that kind of stuff. I'm on a budget. All the time.
Thanks for the education. I suppose I'm going to buy this Wolverine basic model because that's the money I have. I have three boxes of film, and gave up on trying to do it with my iphone. I expect I will have just what I need to share with my other families. Thank you.
Thanks for your review! I am currently *trying* to use one and I'm ready to hurl it into the wall because it keeps stopping! I'm scanning home movies without splices and the darned thing keeps stopping. I can find no reason. I've tried skipping the film guides before the take-up reel in case that was the problem and it most definitely isn't. Sending it back! I just don't know where to go from here :(
@@teddlear970 Welp. It was slightly easier to unjam the film, but it jammed nonetheless, just as many times as the reelz machine. I don't get it. Film has hardly been viewed, the sprocket holes are perfect, and the film has no splices. I think I'm giving up and sending the film to the pros. Certainly before my family figures out I have a machine to digitize 8mm files. Sending this machine back, too, and sending my film out. *dusting of hands*
This machine supposedly has about 300 pixels more resolution in each direction than the other 1080p consumer machines, it would be great to see a sample of that. Just 10 seconds or so.
If the final output is only 1080 (by whatever - presumably 1440), how does having more pixels make any difference? Seems to me the extra detail is thrown away in the firmware. Or?
Based on the photos I saw of this machine, I figured it was a repackaged Wolverine or whatever. I suspect most of these use near identical hardware - especially since almost all of them have the same back panel (SD - USB - Power, in that order), implying they have similar control boards. I guess I'll get the slightly cheaper Wolverine if any are in stock since it's for non-professional use and I don't need to go too crazy. That being said if you have a specific recommendation for a $300-$600 model that actually stands out from the crowd in quality... :D
@@teddlear970 Thanks for the info Ted. I'm seriously looking into buying a slide scanner and super 8/8mm film scanner for our family slides and home movies. I've been wracking my brain trying to pick a brand. You my friend have answered all my questions. Magnasonic it is. Thanks so much for your advice.
Hi,So I want to know which one has better imaging quality for Wolverine and Kodak, because I noticed that they are both $399. Thank you for taking the time to answer
Thanks for this review, Tedd. My impression is that all those machines are identical, and come from the same factory in china. Some are branded Wolverine, some others Omikon, Magnasonic or other names. Some come with no brand at all! The Kodak has a larger screen, but the mechanics and electronics inside are identical. So in the end, the results are strictly identical... - and that is unfortunate, because, to be honest, the files produced are rather poor in quality, and the horrid compression noise spoils many scenes... On the other hand, you can't really expect a $ 400 machine to be on par with a $ 10'000 professional machine!
If you know how to adjust the frame by frame machines, you can get great results. You must remember that 8 mm film has a very low (250 Line) resolution to start. Got to get good setting, especially sharpness and framing settings. Framing is the most important !
I agree. The Magnasonic I purchased from Amazon was remarkably similar to the Kodak Reelz I'd sent back. They both suck. Sending back the magnasonic now. However, I think the resolution is just fine for a low-resolution 8mm film; the problem I have is with the blasted film not advancing FOR NO REASON. washing my hands of the whole thing, sending back the magna sonic, and going to send my film to professionals. It is not worth the headache.
I have a Wolverine machine which simply cannot do Super 8mm film. In your opinion, is the Super 8mm feeding through this Reels machine good, does it not get stuck or have feed issues (apart from bad splicing) ?
Splicing is a problem on all the Chines machines. I found that the Magnasonic FS81 is the easiest to get passed the splices. It only has two hold down tabs in the gate. The Wolverines stop a lot. Because of the three tabs. The method is to release the gate. Then make sure the the advance paw is down so the film is loose. Then pull the film from the back of the gate passed the splice. Then, shut the gate down. It will start again. This may happen each splice. Not fun. It will start a new file every time you have to do this. Very slow process. Good Luck. The reels jams the same as the Wolverine
Funny, the Kodak is now $299.00 on Amazon!! The magnasonic is also 299! Am I crazy I want to get one of these? I am working my way up large format photography and currently at 4x5 film. Want to eventually get to wet collodian and then shoot super 8 for specific parts of wedding in film. Don’t get me wrong I have a canon XA-50 and canon 6D with L series lenses. But I think there is a very real market for the film!
There is no market for 8mm super film today. One place to develop the film. How will you view it. How, will others view it. 4x5 film is great. just look at how big that image is compared to 8mm. If you want to save 8mm super film buy a Magnasonic or a Wolverine. Not a Kodak Reelz. Your choice.
@@teddlear970 the plan is to convert it to digital with the option of buying the processed film. I will do the film processing myself. I have a film tank reel to reel processed. I can do 50’ at a time. I personally have two working projectors! As for the converter I was planning on the magnasonic!!
Hi Pops, We are almost the same age so your piece was very meaningful for me. Let me put it this way, I want to digitalize some home movies and don’t want to pay more than $400. Of all the machines you have used, which would you recommend to a novice like me? Thank you for your video!
I am using a Magnasonic HD version of their 8MM frame by frame digitizer. It works very well and is a work horse. I also have customer support with them. It's guaranteed for a year. $299. I tried to run a 7" reel of film on the "REELZ" It quit 5 times. It looked like crap. The same reel ran with out stopping with great results.
@@rOHRshackartpottery I don't think it will do you any good. Just return it and get a refund. You should NOT buy this !!!! By a Magnasonic FS81 It has a one-year guarantee.
Hi I am from Delhi India and using Wolverine Pro when this machine introduce and I have scanned roughly 1200 films and results is OK and regards Magansonic FS81 and new Kodak Reelz I have no idea which is better and I want to update from Wolverine Pro to other brands Mr. Teed Lear which one to buy Moviestuff or other more professional??
I agree. I try to do the right thing with my reviews. Honest, no matter what. I'm not sponsored and don't want to be. I also don't monetize my channel Thanks for viewing.
The Kodak has a bigger screen, and more logical buttons. Other than that, the actual result isn't much different (to the other 1080p machines - it's obviously better than the 720p ones). It has a sensor with more pixels, but since the firmware reduces that to 1080 anyway, I can't see that being relevant.
Thanks for a very helpful review. I'm about to buy a converter and hope to transfer a lot of OLD 8mm film. I'm most concerned about machine durability vs image quality. I was leaning toward the Wolverine MM100 Pro or the Kodak in your video, but at $150 cheaper, the Magnasonic seems like the better choice. I don't see any significant disadvantage feature-wise, and reliability sounds better. The warranty certainly is. Would you agree? Thanks again - much appreciated.
DaVinci Resolve Studio is the best you can buy. You own it. No monthly fees and that kind of stuff. Epson V600 is a very good flatbed scanner. It takes a lot of time. I think it depends on what you want to do with the image ? If you just want to save them to digital, there are other options. I've been using a Magnasonic FS52. It does a good job on slides and negs. Not pro quality but very good for a easy-to-use device. Good Luck.
Thanks for the excellent review. And more importantly, for the recommendations on what to buy (and NOT buy). I was strongly considering making the plunge and getting a Wolverine MM100 Pro, now will pivot and get the Magansonic FS81, per your recommendation. What is your recommendation for post-production software? DaVinci? I plan to convert around 60 8mm and Super 8 reels for family, so I'd like to have some software that will give the best final video. The price difference between the Magansonic and Wolverine would pay for half of the DaVinci cost. Also, what is your recommendation for a scanner for 35 mm negatives and slides, and some of the smaller consumer size negatives? Can DaVinci (or other recommended software) also post-process the digitized still images?
DaVinci Resolve Studio is the best you can buy. You own it. No monthly fees and that kind of stuff. Epson V600 is a very good flatbed scanner. It takes a lot of time. I think it depends on what you want to do with the image ? If you just want to save them to digital, there are other options. I've been using a Magnasonic FS52. It does a good job on slides and negs. Not pro quality but very good for a easy-to-use device. Good Luck.
Would you recommend Magnasonic over Wolverine Pro? I am just starting to research which machines are best for the best quality output before I make a purchase. Appreciated your video.
A pity the instruction book seems to indicate the loading of 35mm (and single perf too) VistaVision film into the machine, not 8mm film. Doesn't bode well for it.
No, it would not be amazing. Plus, it takes 35 minutes to run a 3" reel (50ft.). That's 3 to 3 to half minutes of total film time. You get what you pay for. Anything is better than this Kodak.
I hate to say it but for a couple of hundred bucks you can't expect much. I do this kind of work professionally and good scanners can be very expensive. What you get it very high quality and durability.
@@teddlear970 We use a Filmfabried HDS+ scanner, Diamant Film Restoration Suite for restoration work and Davinci Resolve for color grading. We scan and deliver home movies in 1080p HD and scan as a JPEG image sequence. When doing restoration work we scan in 4K uncompressed 10-bit DPX image sequences. This gives us the highest quality when doing this type of work. Needless to say scanning and working in 4K uncompressed requires some serious computing power. I'm not comfortable sharing customer home movie footage for privacy reasons. Here's link to our restoration work. th-cam.com/video/oPJlWutuOUs/w-d-xo.html
Interestingly I dont like frame scanning process from this budget machines and if they update and make a real time scanner its better and I know it will be costlier but good for professionals. This is my view may be I am wrong.
Trying to change the bad reviews of the "REELZ". That why. Still not good. Plus so slow..35 minute for a 3 inch reel of film. Ugh. 4.5 hours for a 5" reel.
@@teddlear970 Interesting. Suspected something like that might have been the reason. Although, regarding the scan times, I'm willing to tolerate longer digitizing times if the trade-off is more accurate frame-to-frame registration. When film's moving at regular speed, the little advance claws have less than 1/20th of a second per "grab" to reach up, grab the next sprocket hole, yank it down into place for the 1/18th of a second the frame will be shot through with light, then repeat again, endlessly. When projected onto a very large screen, that "chatter" reveals itself as each frame coming up in a very tiny but different place. Our eyes learn to accept this imprecision, but for the sake of archiving some very important dramatic films done a few decades ago, the better the precision in scanning at the start (registering each frame in exactly the same place as the previous), the better the digital successors will be. What HAS been bugging me is watching a number of reviews of scanned movies, and the surprising graininess of the resulting MPEGs. The grittiness and JPEG-y looking artifacts are surprisingly visible, which is weird, considering they're taking such a small frame and dividing it into (depending on manufacturer) 3280 x 2464 pixels on the sensor, there should be incredible smoothness of the final image, like watching a movie on your cellphone. But apparently the compression method is what's responsible for most of what's getting screwed up. Some other technical issues have been blamed too. Sad, because Kodak used to be world leaders, and they've completely dropped the ball. My very first movie camera in 1966 was a Kodak. Now they just license Chinese firms to slap their name and logo onto whatever rinky-dink products come out of their tech sweatshops. All done in the name of raw, soulless profiteering for the boardroom execs and shareholders.
Great video and explanation . You resemble and remind me of Mark Ramsey from Moonshiners. Check it out if you haven't he could be your little brother. LOL
Just reviewed this unit for Amazon. On the first reel, it stuck on two splices, and one of those splices got stuck in the take-up rollers as well. The resulting footage looked, as you say, grainy and noisy. Meh.
These machines have been made now by one and the same company for about a decade now without necessary changes. These scanners damage the film reels because the film is fed through plastic transport mechanism without any protection at all. Same like the Hanpin (Crossley etc) turntables, these devices are damaging our cultural heritage and should as such be forbidden by Unesco. I also get fined when I scratch the Pyramids in Egypt! The problem is that licencing companies like Kodak have no shame to hand out a licence for this machine. They are now on the same level as Grundig, Blaupunkt etc... that also licence boxed garbage.
My god.... Kodak actually went this low to put their name on these terribad chinese Super 8 film "scanners" that you see being sold everywhere for way more than they are actually worth? Not really what i was hoping for them to do... after allllll their grand Supe 8 Plans from 5-6 years ago. I suppose they changed their mind again.
garbage, thanks tedd, had one as a cheapy to see if it'd expedite our output, wasn't worth it, thank God for Filmfabriek and the MK II units, it's really the only way to go if you're looking on the pro side of things that aren't 100K
The truth is it's not just about scanning. It's about damaging the film. Regular projectors eat and burn film. You can't create a tool for scanning that is a perfect machine. I've seen 100's of DYI scanners that work but, not for long.There really aren't many machines that handle film perfectly. Watch my need video.
@@teddlear970 yes correct. but I need build some best with wetgate and rubber roller edge scanner with smooth feed film. similar like IMAX system. also with light diffusion regulation and infrared ICE technology scratch removal. Of if not then just will buy some Lasergraphics device. we need quality scnner.
@@teddlear970 in some cases money doenst matter if ned good quality, I have precision customer who want pay double and triple for even little better quality improvement. So may be i will buy something like cheaper option from Germany or Blackmagic design scanner.
Hi Pops, I already AM 78 and waiting delivery of a Kodak machine... My films were copied from projections into 1080P off movie screens without flicker, most of the time. They served me well. This machine hopefully will do better.
don't count on it.
Tedd, one comment. The camera that the Kodak is using has more megapixels than the Wolverine pro so some of the specs are much better. When you transfer with the Wolverine or the Kodak you shouldn't "zoom in" to the picture to frame it correctly. When you "zoom in" you are losing pixels (quality of the picture). You should "zoom out" and you will notice a difference. You can correct this later with software and you won't lose the picture quality. This zoom feature is not optical it is just a digital zoom (digital zooms on this or any camera is just expanding the image and any defects that are in the picture).
First I ran standard film as it was filmed in 1967. NO zoom. Your statement is not for me. I'm 78 years old and learned this 40 years ago. Megapixels are crazy today. It depends on the reviewer. However, This is a sensor, not a LENS. The point here is you don't want to buy and own this machine. Period.
Surely, if the output file is at 1080p, then the sensor having more pixels is irrelevant: if the whole machine only gives you 1080p, then you're not going to get better than 1080p. I don't know why they _use_ a sensor with more, if they're going to reduce it to 1080 anyway. (Yes, it will be better than the 720p models, like the basic Wolverine/Reflecta/etc.)
Today, N0v 11, 2023. These machines are still crap. The worst of all such consumer machines. NEVER BUY ONE, NEVER
Got one a month ago. Sent it back after running sever 5 inch reels through it. JUMPY results in both regular and super 8mm.
That was the right thing to do. Buy a Magnasonic FS81 from Walmart online. If you don't like it, they have a good return policy. I love mine does a great job, all the time.
Great! I'm happy to see a review of this product. Hello from France. :-)
Thanks, I was in France several years ago. I enjoyed it.
Thanks. I have a newly purchased Wolverine Pro and was interested in seeing if the video quality would be getter using this machine. My price threshold was the $400 I paid for the Wolverine Pro and looks like that is as good as it gets for that price range. I will, however, download the DiVinci software you spoke of and play around with it to see if I can color correct or otherwise improve on the movie scans. Happy Birthday. I just turned 75 on the 20th.
In DaVinci Resolve Studio you can do anything. Remove dust, remove scratches, color enhance and many more. It cost $299 list. It's Excellent and you own it. No monthly fee and that kind of stuff. I'm on a budget. All the time.
Would you recommend DaVinci Resolve Studio over FCPX?
Thanks for the education. I suppose I'm going to buy this Wolverine basic model because that's the money I have. I have three boxes of film, and gave up on trying to do it with my iphone. I expect I will have just what I need to share with my other families. Thank you.
I’m experimenting with “filming off the wall” currently. Might end up going this path.
Thanks for your review! I am currently *trying* to use one and I'm ready to hurl it into the wall because it keeps stopping! I'm scanning home movies without splices and the darned thing keeps stopping. I can find no reason. I've tried skipping the film guides before the take-up reel in case that was the problem and it most definitely isn't. Sending it back! I just don't know where to go from here :(
I think if you try a Magnasonic FS81 you'll have a much easier time. If you don't like it return it.
@@teddlear970
Thanks I think I will!
@@teddlear970 Welp. It was slightly easier to unjam the film, but it jammed nonetheless, just as many times as the reelz machine. I don't get it. Film has hardly been viewed, the sprocket holes are perfect, and the film has no splices. I think I'm giving up and sending the film to the pros. Certainly before my family figures out I have a machine to digitize 8mm files. Sending this machine back, too, and sending my film out. *dusting of hands*
This machine supposedly has about 300 pixels more resolution in each direction than the other 1080p consumer machines, it would be great to see a sample of that. Just 10 seconds or so.
Buy one. you'll see trash. then return it. i returned mine the same day for a full refund.
If the final output is only 1080 (by whatever - presumably 1440), how does having more pixels make any difference? Seems to me the extra detail is thrown away in the firmware. Or?
Based on the photos I saw of this machine, I figured it was a repackaged Wolverine or whatever. I suspect most of these use near identical hardware - especially since almost all of them have the same back panel (SD - USB - Power, in that order), implying they have similar control boards.
I guess I'll get the slightly cheaper Wolverine if any are in stock since it's for non-professional use and I don't need to go too crazy. That being said if you have a specific recommendation for a $300-$600 model that actually stands out from the crowd in quality... :D
Magnasonic is what I use. It's good and Stable and dependable. One year gaurantee $299
@@teddlear970 Thanks for the info Ted. I'm seriously looking into buying a slide scanner and super 8/8mm film scanner for our family slides and home movies. I've been wracking my brain trying to pick a brand. You my friend have answered all my questions. Magnasonic it is. Thanks so much for your advice.
Note that the Kodak does NOT have the video out socket.
Hi,So I want to know which one has better imaging quality for Wolverine and Kodak, because I noticed that they are both $399. Thank you for taking the time to answer
No question. Wolverine Pro. But Magnasonic FS81 the same as the Wolverine only cost $299.
@@teddlear970 thanks for you help！
Thanks for this review, Tedd. My impression is that all those machines are identical, and come from the same factory in china. Some are branded Wolverine, some others Omikon, Magnasonic or other names. Some come with no brand at all! The Kodak has a larger screen, but the mechanics and electronics inside are identical. So in the end, the results are strictly identical... - and that is unfortunate, because, to be honest, the files produced are rather poor in quality, and the horrid compression noise spoils many scenes... On the other hand, you can't really expect a $ 400 machine to be on par with a $ 10'000 professional machine!
If you know how to adjust the frame by frame machines, you can get great results. You must remember that 8 mm film has a very low (250 Line) resolution to start. Got to get good setting, especially sharpness and framing settings. Framing is the most important !
I agree. The Magnasonic I purchased from Amazon was remarkably similar to the Kodak Reelz I'd sent back. They both suck. Sending back the magnasonic now. However, I think the resolution is just fine for a low-resolution 8mm film; the problem I have is with the blasted film not advancing FOR NO REASON. washing my hands of the whole thing, sending back the magna sonic, and going to send my film to professionals. It is not worth the headache.
@@kellybethga I think you're right, Take it to a PRO. This is not for you.
I think the actual maker is called Winait.
Fantastic insight, really appreciate your review of this!
Glad it was helpful!
Thankyou.
I have a Wolverine machine which simply cannot do Super 8mm film. In your opinion, is the Super 8mm feeding through this Reels machine good, does it not get stuck or have feed issues (apart from bad splicing) ?
Splicing is a problem on all the Chines machines. I found that the Magnasonic FS81 is the easiest to get passed the splices. It only has two hold down tabs in the gate. The Wolverines stop a lot. Because of the three tabs. The method is to release the gate. Then make sure the the advance paw is down so the film is loose. Then pull the film from the back of the gate passed the splice. Then, shut the gate down. It will start again. This may happen each splice. Not fun. It will start a new file every time you have to do this. Very slow process. Good Luck. The reels jams the same as the Wolverine
Funny, the Kodak is now $299.00 on Amazon!! The magnasonic is also 299! Am I crazy I want to get one of these? I am working my way up large format photography and currently at 4x5 film. Want to eventually get to wet collodian and then shoot super 8 for specific parts of wedding in film. Don’t get me wrong I have a canon XA-50 and canon 6D with L series lenses. But I think there is a very real market for the film!
There is no market for 8mm super film today. One place to develop the film. How will you view it. How, will others view it. 4x5 film is great. just look at how big that image is compared to 8mm. If you want to save 8mm super film buy a Magnasonic or a Wolverine. Not a Kodak Reelz. Your choice.
@@teddlear970 the plan is to convert it to digital with the option of buying the processed film. I will do the film processing myself. I have a film tank reel to reel processed. I can do 50’ at a time. I personally have two working projectors! As for the converter I was planning on the magnasonic!!
@@kamaksi24 Good Luck my friend
Hi Pops,
We are almost the same age so your piece was very meaningful for me. Let me put it this way, I want to digitalize some home movies and don’t want to pay more than $400. Of all the machines you have used, which would you recommend to a novice like me? Thank you for your video!
I am using a Magnasonic HD version of their 8MM frame by frame digitizer. It works very well and is a work horse. I also have customer support with them. It's guaranteed for a year. $299. I tried to run a 7" reel of film on the "REELZ" It quit 5 times. It looked like crap. The same reel ran with out stopping with great results.
@@teddlear970 I plan to check out that device for purchase. Do you recommend I take a service contract as well?
@@rOHRshackartpottery I don't think it will do you any good. Just return it and get a refund. You should NOT buy this !!!! By a Magnasonic FS81 It has a one-year guarantee.
Hi I am from Delhi India and using Wolverine Pro when this machine introduce and I have scanned roughly 1200 films and results is OK and regards Magansonic FS81 and new Kodak Reelz I have no idea which is better and I want to update from Wolverine Pro to other brands Mr. Teed Lear which one to buy Moviestuff or other more professional??
Good review. I figured if Kodak was getting into the game, they would have put out something that was better than what is already out there.
I agree. I try to do the right thing with my reviews. Honest, no matter what. I'm not sponsored and don't want to be. I also don't monetize my channel Thanks for viewing.
The Kodak has a bigger screen, and more logical buttons. Other than that, the actual result isn't much different (to the other 1080p machines - it's obviously better than the 720p ones). It has a sensor with more pixels, but since the firmware reduces that to 1080 anyway, I can't see that being relevant.
Thanks for a very helpful review. I'm about to buy a converter and hope to transfer a lot of OLD 8mm film. I'm most concerned about machine durability vs image quality. I was leaning toward the Wolverine MM100 Pro or the Kodak in your video, but at $150 cheaper, the Magnasonic seems like the better choice. I don't see any significant disadvantage feature-wise, and reliability sounds better. The warranty certainly is.
Would you agree?
Thanks again - much appreciated.
DaVinci Resolve Studio is the best you can buy. You own it. No monthly fees and that kind of stuff. Epson V600 is a very good flatbed scanner. It takes a lot of time. I think it depends on what you want to do with the image ? If you just want to save them to digital, there are other options. I've been using a Magnasonic FS52. It does a good job on slides and negs. Not pro quality but very good for a easy-to-use
device. Good Luck.
I think you can't go wrong with Magnasonic FS81
Thanks for the excellent review. And more importantly, for the recommendations on what to buy (and NOT buy). I was strongly considering making the plunge and getting a Wolverine MM100 Pro, now will pivot and get the Magansonic FS81, per your recommendation.
What is your recommendation for post-production software? DaVinci? I plan to convert around 60 8mm and Super 8 reels for family, so I'd like to have some software that will give the best final video. The price difference between the Magansonic and Wolverine would pay for half of the DaVinci cost.
Also, what is your recommendation for a scanner for 35 mm negatives and slides, and some of the smaller consumer size negatives? Can DaVinci (or other recommended software) also post-process the digitized still images?
DaVinci Resolve Studio is the best you can buy. You own it. No monthly fees and that kind of stuff. Epson V600 is a very good flatbed scanner. It takes a lot of time. I think it depends on what you want to do with the image ? If you just want to save them to digital, there are other options. I've been using a Magnasonic FS52. It does a good job on slides and negs. Not pro quality but very good for a easy-to-use
device. Good Luck.
Would you recommend Magnasonic over Wolverine Pro? I am just starting to research which machines are best for the best quality output before I make a purchase. Appreciated your video.
yes
A pity the instruction book seems to indicate the loading of 35mm (and single perf too) VistaVision film into the machine, not 8mm film. Doesn't bode well for it.
it only does 8 mm standard & 8 mm super. Won't fit in the gate. If you have one. Dump it.
Nice review 💫
Love to l'arnaque all the time thanks
Love to learn
Is there any way I can see the quality of the scan?
Why ? this machine won't run long enough to complete a 7" reel. Any other 8mm is better.
Uou can look at my YT scan. "Kodak "Reelz Mt. Hood Demo. I removed the video noise.
I have a lot of videos I took with kodaks first super 8 with sound, is there any thing in the same price range as the Reelz that also records sound?
Not a thing .
This one is available online, and it’s going to be at $400. That’s very expensive.
DUMP IT.
Would be amazing, there was some footage to look at. 🤷
No, it would not be amazing. Plus, it takes 35 minutes to run a 3" reel (50ft.). That's 3 to 3 to half minutes of total film time. You get what you pay for. Anything is better than this Kodak.
It take about 10 hrs for and hour of transfer
Return it. It's no good !
Does this thing at least have codec options and framerate selection or does it spit out the scanned films again as lowbitrate 30p videos?
No need to answer. It's a piece of crap.
I hate to say it but for a couple of hundred bucks you can't expect much. I do this kind of work professionally and good scanners can be very expensive. What you get it very high quality and durability.
@@garytempleton5097 Show me your work. Tell what you use. People on my youtube channel need to know. Thanks
@@teddlear970 We use a Filmfabried HDS+ scanner, Diamant Film Restoration Suite for restoration work and Davinci Resolve for color grading. We scan and deliver home movies in 1080p HD and scan as a JPEG image sequence. When doing restoration work we scan in 4K uncompressed 10-bit DPX image sequences. This gives us the highest quality when doing this type of work. Needless to say scanning and working in 4K uncompressed requires some serious computing power. I'm not comfortable sharing customer home movie footage for privacy reasons.
Here's link to our restoration work.
th-cam.com/video/oPJlWutuOUs/w-d-xo.html
Interestingly I dont like frame scanning process from this budget machines and if they update and make a real time scanner its better and I know it will be costlier but good for professionals. This is my view may be I am wrong.
Funny that it's now spelled REELS, instead of the REELZ of 2021. Wonder why they changed it.
Trying to change the bad reviews of the "REELZ". That why. Still not good. Plus so slow..35 minute for a 3 inch reel of film. Ugh. 4.5 hours for a 5" reel.
@@teddlear970 Interesting. Suspected something like that might have been the reason.
Although, regarding the scan times, I'm willing to tolerate longer digitizing times if the trade-off is more accurate frame-to-frame registration. When film's moving at regular speed, the little advance claws have less than 1/20th of a second per "grab" to reach up, grab the next sprocket hole, yank it down into place for the 1/18th of a second the frame will be shot through with light, then repeat again, endlessly. When projected onto a very large screen, that "chatter" reveals itself as each frame coming up in a very tiny but different place. Our eyes learn to accept this imprecision, but for the sake of archiving some very important dramatic films done a few decades ago, the better the precision in scanning at the start (registering each frame in exactly the same place as the previous), the better the digital successors will be.
What HAS been bugging me is watching a number of reviews of scanned movies, and the surprising graininess of the resulting MPEGs. The grittiness and JPEG-y looking artifacts are surprisingly visible, which is weird, considering they're taking such a small frame and dividing it into (depending on manufacturer) 3280 x 2464 pixels on the sensor, there should be incredible smoothness of the final image, like watching a movie on your cellphone. But apparently the compression method is what's responsible for most of what's getting screwed up. Some other technical issues have been blamed too.
Sad, because Kodak used to be world leaders, and they've completely dropped the ball. My very first movie camera in 1966 was a Kodak. Now they just license Chinese firms to slap their name and logo onto whatever rinky-dink products come out of their tech sweatshops. All done in the name of raw, soulless profiteering for the boardroom execs and shareholders.
We need the results. None of these videos show the results ????
No. Because there is no results from failure !
Great video and explanation . You resemble and remind me of Mark Ramsey from Moonshiners. Check it out if you haven't he could be your little brother. LOL
LOL, ok..Maybe a little.
Just reviewed this unit for Amazon. On the first reel, it stuck on two splices, and one of those splices got stuck in the take-up rollers as well. The resulting footage looked, as you say, grainy and noisy. Meh.
A real waste of time and effort. Trash. Real Trash !
como puedo oír la explicación en CASTELLANO gracias
Welcome.
Seems like a Kodak rebranded chinese film scanner. Kodak doesn't produce anything any more, just OEM. Shame on Kodak.
Actually, Kodak doesn't exist, it is owned by another company using their branding. Bad.
These machines have been made now by one and the same company for about a decade now without necessary changes. These scanners damage the film reels because the film is fed through plastic transport mechanism without any protection at all. Same like the Hanpin (Crossley etc) turntables, these devices are damaging our cultural heritage and should as such be forbidden by Unesco. I also get fined when I scratch the Pyramids in Egypt! The problem is that licencing companies like Kodak have no shame to hand out a licence for this machine. They are now on the same level as Grundig, Blaupunkt etc... that also licence boxed garbage.
I know. Telling others is a good thing. However, most people don't care.
My god.... Kodak actually went this low to put their name on these terribad chinese Super 8 film "scanners" that you see being sold everywhere for way more than they are actually worth? Not really what i was hoping for them to do... after allllll their grand Supe 8 Plans from 5-6 years ago. I suppose they changed their mind again.
Kodak doesn't exist. There have licensed to to third party.
Wolverine one is Better
Yes. much better.
garbage, thanks tedd, had one as a cheapy to see if it'd expedite our output, wasn't worth it, thank God for Filmfabriek and the MK II units, it's really the only way to go if you're looking on the pro side of things that aren't 100K
Different case shape but same garbage like Wolverine and Magnasonic. Better create own tool for scanning.
The truth is it's not just about scanning. It's about damaging the film. Regular projectors eat and burn film. You can't create a tool for scanning that is a perfect machine. I've seen 100's of DYI scanners that work but, not for long.There really aren't many machines that handle film perfectly. Watch my need video.
@@teddlear970 yes correct. but I need build some best with wetgate and rubber roller edge scanner with smooth feed film. similar like IMAX system. also with light diffusion regulation and infrared ICE technology scratch removal. Of if not then just will buy some Lasergraphics device. we need quality scnner.
just a matter of money.
@@teddlear970 in some cases money doenst matter if ned good quality, I have precision customer who want pay double and triple for even little better quality improvement. So may be i will buy something like cheaper option from Germany or Blackmagic design scanner.
@@oleggritsev ok, try Filmfabriek , the Pictor will set you back only $16,000