I just got mine this week and have already scanned 10 trays of slides. If you slide is good, than the picture it produces is good, but if you slide is old, dis-colored than it won't. But you can use software to kind of fix them up to an extent, considering how bad they were. This also does a good job of color negatives. Takes me about 10-15 minutes to scan a tray of 80. once I'm done, I then go to my photoshop software to correct some of the bad slides, that takes maybe another 15-30 depending on how bad they were. I used to get my Kodac slide projector out and show the slides on a white backdrop and then take a picture of them with my digital camera, but this scanner does a much better job and is faster. Well worth the money, especially if you have a lot of slides to scan.
THANKS... yea I am using it for the first time and am thrilled as well with work flow and to relive these moments taken in 1970s. thew files are about 5-6 meg and very odd pixelations and noise. However I have so many negatives its a perfect way to blow through looking at everything and then will re-scan on a better machine some choices. I wish this machine write a bigger better file but .....
I did some research on this not too long ago. Basically, the best quality and faster operation comes from using a DSL, possibly a compact digital camera. You need either an old fashioned slide copier, or a DIY version.
Lon...just watched your review of the Wolverine Titan and I was wondering if you reviewed anything in this price range that you felt was worth purchasing. I have a draw full of old family photos, slides and negatives that I would love to digitize for my family an friends before I go off to the great beyond. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Wow thanks! So it's 2021 now, have you looked at what's out there now (4 years later) and is there anything you can suggest that's as easy to use but maybe has better images at the end?
I have a Wolverine slide scanner, and I would hardly call it a scanner. It's basically, a cheap camera module (with adjustable focusing lens and all, looks like it came from a cheap security camera) placed inside, with a cheap blue-ish "cool" color temperature LED backlight to light up your slides. Thats why all of the image adjusting needs to be done to get the colors correct. I'm thinking you might be better off with a DSLR and slide holder setup, and using a brighter/natural light source for a better capture of the slide. I bought my scanner at a Goodwill for $5 to see if it worked, and it did, and I was surprised to see the original receipt in the box, and that the person that originally purchased it paid $249.99 through the Home Shopping Network for it!
Yeah, I bought the Kodak Scanza, which is identical to this thing from the looks of it. I have basically the same complaints that you point out here; just not very good image quality. I have about 800 slides that need converting, so I bought the Kodak because it turned out that it was way cheaper to buy it than to have the slides professionally converted. You get what you pay for I guess.
Jump to 4:34 to skip what every device like this does. He doesn't mention that the removal of Jpeg artifacts is one of the easiest post batch processing steps in software like Irfanview and Adobe Photoshop. Also the speed of the film should reflect the applicable comments. For example anything above 400 speed film is beyond resolution or noise improvement by any standard I am familiar with. SISO. For 400 and above even this scanner is overkill. OK review. Wish he would show the complete work process, can you just feed in the next negative?
So what's the verdict on the best option outside the Wolverine? I don't want a full blown scanner, I'd like to stick to a device such as this. TIA for your prompt reply, seems like others are waiting for your purchase blessing as well ;) !
If scanned any full-imaged 35mm film(s), can it be zoomed out to show the sprocket holes that is to be fully scanned to SD Disk ? That would be positively awesome !
Thanks for your great commentary. I do wonder if this amazingly fast converter can do something about the compression quality because the noise in the film output is bad. But it works great for doing fast converting of slides and films.
Seems like a major issue with that device, it really should be capturing a raw file, or even bracketed raw files like you would if using a DSLR to scan photo negatives to ensure you are at least getting the full exposure info out of the negative, without really introducing additional noise.
Thanks for the review Lon! I was looking forward to it! I have 40 plus years of slides and negatives! I even had a 4x5 inch view camera for awhile. Sad that it doesn't work well! Do you have any film scanner you would recommend? Thanks again, Rick
I disagree with your comment Davide. While the functionality and appearance is "decent enough," the end result -- the actual image quality -- is extremely poor. If you are wanting a toy then the fact that you get an image at all is good enough. But this is marketed as a piece of equipment to help one archive their photographic library electronically. There is still not a device out there that can solve this problem which is relatively inexpensive ($500 or less), easy to use. and provides excellent image quality. All three criteria must be met. Two out of three is not good enough. Sorry Davide, this device "Didn't make the cut," and should have been featured in August's video with two other devices which "Didn't make the cut."
TotoFrancey to merit a review a product doesn't necessarily have to be great, even just being interesting is good enough to warrant a video. At the end of the day Lon needs views and a product like this brings them since I guess there's little to no coverage of it on TH-cam.
Davide -- Using an old cliche, "We're just going to have to agree to disagree." The facts that this device is "unique," "interesting" or "not widely covered" does not merit a full review. One must go back as to why the product was created in the first place -- which in this case is to make quality digital images from photographic slides and negatives -- and in this intent, the product fails and "Didn't Make the Cut." Had the product been able to produce a quality image but maybe had issues with the display or the "on/off" switch or been awkward to work with then I could see the point of a full review. For the record, the original unit which Lon received was faulty (it didn't work) and had to be exchanged for another unit, so this company was already given a second chance whereas many other reviewers wouldn't have been this kind. But the product fails in its original intent. Bottom Line. It "Didn't Make the Cut."
Lon I know it might sound dumb but I see there is an HDMI port on it. I guess it is for streaming it to a TV or a projector, is there a way to feed that signal directly to a computer and save the feed there as a screen shot or a video and then save the frames into a better image quality and format? Just curious. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Hey Lon. I was skeptical of this slide converter, and now after watching your video I will remove it from my Amazon basket. Which slide converter do you recommend?
I think you're best off going with a proper photo scanner . I haven't reviewed one in awhile but there are some decent ones out there. They will just take considerably longer per slide. Epson's flatbeds come with trays that allow you to load up multiple slides at a time.
I have many undeveloped rolls of film can you tell me would I need to get the rolls developed first or would it work directly from the undeveloped rolls.
Man, a Ford Probe. That's up there with the Geo Metro and Eagle Talon as the quintessential early '90s college car. A shame about the image quality on this thing, I've got some 126 negatives that need to be scanned. Those white flecks are definitely something not normal jpeg compression artifacts. Maybe they (or enterprising users) can just disable the compression engine and save a tiff or bmp. The Epson FastFoto makes short work of prints, but decent *and* fast negative/slide scanning is still a pipe dream.
I have a Wolverine Mighty and I have noticed that framed slides in the adapter convert a bit fuzzy, but if you tediously place them on the scanner surface, no adapter, the conversion is a lot sharper. Has anyone else noticed this? I don't know if it is a problem in general with these devices or if my 2+ year old Mighty is defective. Does the Titan solve this problem? Is a Kodak Scanza or any of the competing digital converters any better? A flatbed scanner might do better, but who has the time to do slow scans of 1000s of slides? Sharp slightly off color results work for me.
Hello! I updated the firmware, downloaded version V23 from the site, after which the scanner refuses to see the SD Card. Before that, I had the firmware as in the attached screenshot ... Can you send me this firmware? or newer something ... if only the scanner began to see the SD card again. Thank you
I'm very surprised. The result files from other written reviews of the older model (Super F2D) and the current cheaper model (F2D Mighty) do not seem to have any major artifact like yours. The files are grainy, quite soft, and have limited dynamic range, but they aren't as bad as these.
I always thought the Probe was a really cool car, even more than the Mustang to my then middle-school eyes. Too bad it wasn't a GT. The V6 in that version was amazing.
One of my middle-school classmates' families had a V6 Mazda 626, which was the 4-door version of the MX-6. Have you ever checked out the channel Regular Car Reviews? A lot of the cars they review are ones that I have fond memories of from my childhood that inspired me to want to get into the business, where I've now been employed for most of my life.
I was so happy to see Motor Week put a lot of its older reviews on TH-cam. I used to record it every week so I could watch it when I got home from school. I'm actually an automotive journalist by trade (now employed on the marketing side of the car industry), and I've met John Davis several times. He's a really nice guy, very down to earth with none of the sense of entitlement that was common with a lot of other writers I've met over the years. And fair warning: Regular Car Reviews uses its share of "colorful" language. I wouldn't have it on in front of the kids. His overall presentation reminds me a lot of Red Letter Media.
I was just using Preview on my Mac. I am using Apple Photos quite a bit these days primarily because it syncs up between everything I have and supports RAW files from my SLRs.
Yes, but, a lot of people didn't know how their cameras operated and took subpar pictures.They shot crud and they got crud. To me that's too bad but I do the best I can with what I m given.
Lon, I got a this model Wolverine scanner as a gift. Your review is spot on, I found the images are not sharp, the color is shifted toward yellow, but most of all there is so much contrast that important detail is lost. I'm looking for another scanner and happened to see this review. I was curious on your experience with the scanner. Thank you for being honest. This scanner is junk with a capital "J". Do you have a scanner you recommend?
I just got mine this week and have already scanned 10 trays of slides. If you slide is good, than the picture it produces is good, but if you slide is old, dis-colored than it won't. But you can use software to kind of fix them up to an extent, considering how bad they were. This also does a good job of color negatives. Takes me about 10-15 minutes to scan a tray of 80. once I'm done, I then go to my photoshop software to correct some of the bad slides, that takes maybe another 15-30 depending on how bad they were. I used to get my Kodac slide projector out and show the slides on a white backdrop and then take a picture of them with my digital camera, but this scanner does a much better job and is faster. Well worth the money, especially if you have a lot of slides to scan.
THANKS... yea I am using it for the first time and am thrilled as well with work flow and to relive these moments taken in 1970s. thew files are about 5-6 meg and very odd pixelations and noise. However I have so many negatives its a perfect way to blow through looking at everything and then will re-scan on a better machine some choices. I wish this machine write a bigger better file but .....
I did some research on this not too long ago. Basically, the best quality and faster operation comes from using a DSL, possibly a compact digital camera. You need either an old fashioned slide copier, or a DIY version.
If you want quality at a bargain cost,this is for you. Just got one,and it is amazing.I'm 100% satisfied and it
didn't set me back 1k plus.
Thank you for an honest, open review.
Lon...just watched your review of the Wolverine Titan and I was wondering if you reviewed anything in this price range that you felt was worth purchasing. I have a draw full of old family photos, slides and negatives that I would love to digitize for my family an friends before I go off to the great beyond. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Wow thanks! So it's 2021 now, have you looked at what's out there now (4 years later) and is there anything you can suggest that's as easy to use but maybe has better images at the end?
I have a Wolverine slide scanner, and I would hardly call it a scanner. It's basically, a cheap camera module (with adjustable focusing lens and all, looks like it came from a cheap security camera) placed inside, with a cheap blue-ish "cool" color temperature LED backlight to light up your slides. Thats why all of the image adjusting needs to be done to get the colors correct. I'm thinking you might be better off with a DSLR and slide holder setup, and using a brighter/natural light source for a better capture of the slide. I bought my scanner at a Goodwill for $5 to see if it worked, and it did, and I was surprised to see the original receipt in the box, and that the person that originally purchased it paid $249.99 through the Home Shopping Network for it!
Hi Lon, thank you for your review. Has there been an update on this product? Did they improve the image quality?
Yeah, I bought the Kodak Scanza, which is identical to this thing from the looks of it. I have basically the same complaints that you point out here; just not very good image quality. I have about 800 slides that need converting, so I bought the Kodak because it turned out that it was way cheaper to buy it than to have the slides professionally converted. You get what you pay for I guess.
💥 Have you found anything better since then.?
@@Jimmy_Cavallo No I haven’t looked at anything else yet.
Jump to 4:34 to skip what every device like this does. He doesn't mention that the removal of Jpeg artifacts is one of the easiest post batch processing steps in software like Irfanview and Adobe Photoshop. Also the speed of the film should reflect the applicable comments. For example anything above 400 speed film is beyond resolution or noise improvement by any standard I am familiar with. SISO. For 400 and above even this scanner is overkill. OK review. Wish he would show the complete work process, can you just feed in the next negative?
Hey Lon. Great video. What machine do you recommend for better quality conversion?
Did you try 8mm film? Doesn’t explain how to do it on there web site. Is I manually done? Thanks
So what's the verdict on the best option outside the Wolverine? I don't want a full blown scanner, I'd like to stick to a device such as this. TIA for your prompt reply, seems like others are waiting for your purchase blessing as well ;) !
If scanned any full-imaged 35mm film(s), can it be zoomed out to show the sprocket holes that is to be fully scanned to SD Disk ? That would be positively awesome !
No the bracket covers up the sprockets.
Hi Lon, I’m looking for something to convert mostly 110 negatives what machine would you recommend that has good quality? Thank you.
Connie
Thanks for your great commentary. I do wonder if this amazingly fast converter can do something about the compression quality because the noise in the film output is bad. But it works great for doing fast converting of slides and films.
Does it come with the SD card?
Interesting and helpful review. Bur what would have a much better quality image?
Seems like a major issue with that device, it really should be capturing a raw file, or even bracketed raw files like you would if using a DSLR to scan photo negatives to ensure you are at least getting the full exposure info out of the negative, without really introducing additional noise.
Thanks for the review Lon! I was looking forward to it! I have 40 plus years of slides and negatives! I even had a 4x5 inch view camera for awhile. Sad that it doesn't work well! Do you have any film scanner you would recommend? Thanks again, Rick
Even I am looking for a alternative with good image quality.
@@swaroop4938 I
Its usb mini not micro 1:47. Nice review!
Slipup.
Yep
This device should have been featured on the August episode of "Didn't Make the Cut."
TotoFrancey naa, it's decent enough, and unique enough, to merit a separate review.
I disagree with your comment Davide. While the functionality and appearance is "decent enough," the end result -- the actual image quality -- is extremely poor. If you are wanting a toy then the fact that you get an image at all is good enough. But this is marketed as a piece of equipment to help one archive their photographic library electronically. There is still not a device out there that can solve this problem which is relatively inexpensive ($500 or less), easy to use. and provides excellent image quality. All three criteria must be met. Two out of three is not good enough. Sorry Davide, this device "Didn't make the cut," and should have been featured in August's video with two other devices which "Didn't make the cut."
TotoFrancey to merit a review a product doesn't necessarily have to be great, even just being interesting is good enough to warrant a video. At the end of the day Lon needs views and a product like this brings them since I guess there's little to no coverage of it on TH-cam.
Davide -- Using an old cliche, "We're just going to have to agree to disagree." The facts that this device is "unique," "interesting" or "not widely covered" does not merit a full review. One must go back as to why the product was created in the first place -- which in this case is to make quality digital images from photographic slides and negatives -- and in this intent, the product fails and "Didn't Make the Cut." Had the product been able to produce a quality image but maybe had issues with the display or the "on/off" switch or been awkward to work with then I could see the point of a full review. For the record, the original unit which Lon received was faulty (it didn't work) and had to be exchanged for another unit, so this company was already given a second chance whereas many other reviewers wouldn't have been this kind. But the product fails in its original intent. Bottom Line. It "Didn't Make the Cut."
Lon I know it might sound dumb but I see there is an HDMI port on it. I guess it is for streaming it to a TV or a projector, is there a way to feed that signal directly to a computer and save the feed there as a screen shot or a video and then save the frames into a better image quality and format? Just curious. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Aukov2 the resolution of this thing on hdmi I guess will be 720p or 1080p..way lower than 20 MP of the device
What slide scanner would be better with better picture quality?
Yes but much slower
Lon.TV what's the scanner so I can see if it could meet my needs?
How is the Kodak Scanza in comparison? Do you have a video on that?
Hey Lon. I was skeptical of this slide converter, and now after watching your video I will remove it from my Amazon basket. Which slide converter do you recommend?
I think you're best off going with a proper photo scanner . I haven't reviewed one in awhile but there are some decent ones out there. They will just take considerably longer per slide. Epson's flatbeds come with trays that allow you to load up multiple slides at a time.
I have many undeveloped rolls of film can you tell me would I need to get the rolls developed first or would it work directly from the undeveloped rolls.
This does not develop film you'll have to get them processed first.
Will this process 30 x 30mm slides?
How does it rewind
Man, a Ford Probe. That's up there with the Geo Metro and Eagle Talon as the quintessential early '90s college car.
A shame about the image quality on this thing, I've got some 126 negatives that need to be scanned. Those white flecks are definitely something not normal jpeg compression artifacts. Maybe they (or enterprising users) can just disable the compression engine and save a tiff or bmp. The Epson FastFoto makes short work of prints, but decent *and* fast negative/slide scanning is still a pipe dream.
Thanks for this great review !
Great review, I also saw your old plustek review. what do you recommend now (2017)?
for color film i just do the same process ?
Hi Lon,
What film scanner would you recommend?
I have a Wolverine Mighty and I have noticed that framed slides in the adapter convert a bit fuzzy, but if you tediously place them on the scanner surface, no adapter, the conversion is a lot sharper. Has anyone else noticed this? I don't know if it is a problem in general with these devices or if my 2+ year old Mighty is defective. Does the Titan solve this problem? Is a Kodak Scanza or any of the competing digital converters any better? A flatbed scanner might do better, but who has the time to do slow scans of 1000s of slides? Sharp slightly off color results work for me.
Hello! I updated the firmware, downloaded version V23 from the site, after which the scanner refuses to see the SD Card. Before that, I had the firmware as in the attached screenshot ... Can you send me this firmware? or newer something ... if only the scanner began to see the SD card again.
Thank you
I'm very surprised. The result files from other written reviews of the older model (Super F2D) and the current cheaper model (F2D Mighty) do not seem to have any major artifact like yours. The files are grainy, quite soft, and have limited dynamic range, but they aren't as bad as these.
i wonder how this device sub par quality compares to costco picture and video transfer service they offer?
I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone have an answer???
does it do 2&1/2 inch wide negatives
1:47 isnt micro
I always thought the Probe was a really cool car, even more than the Mustang to my then middle-school eyes. Too bad it wasn't a GT. The V6 in that version was amazing.
My Mom had the Mazda MX-6 which was the same platform (different body). She had the V6 version, great engine!
One of my middle-school classmates' families had a V6 Mazda 626, which was the 4-door version of the MX-6. Have you ever checked out the channel Regular Car Reviews? A lot of the cars they review are ones that I have fond memories of from my childhood that inspired me to want to get into the business, where I've now been employed for most of my life.
Awesome! I need to check that out! I've been watching a lot of the Motor Week retro reviews but haven't seen that one yet.
I was so happy to see Motor Week put a lot of its older reviews on TH-cam. I used to record it every week so I could watch it when I got home from school. I'm actually an automotive journalist by trade (now employed on the marketing side of the car industry), and I've met John Davis several times. He's a really nice guy, very down to earth with none of the sense of entitlement that was common with a lot of other writers I've met over the years.
And fair warning: Regular Car Reviews uses its share of "colorful" language. I wouldn't have it on in front of the kids. His overall presentation reminds me a lot of Red Letter Media.
What's better for image quality and with the same efficiency and price point?
Ha...I had a Ford Probe as well!
Great review Lon! What photo software are you using on your Mac in this video?
I was just using Preview on my Mac. I am using Apple Photos quite a bit these days primarily because it syncs up between everything I have and supports RAW files from my SLRs.
Yes, but, a lot of people didn't know how their cameras operated and took subpar pictures.They shot crud and they got crud. To me that's too bad but I do the best I can with what I
m given.
film theu chemical first ?
but all the films have tht imperfection that its beutiful. i think this is cool for personal use
Lon, I got a this model Wolverine scanner as a gift. Your review is spot on, I found the images are not sharp, the color is shifted toward yellow, but most of all there is so much contrast that important detail is lost. I'm looking for another scanner and happened to see this review. I was curious on your experience with the scanner. Thank you for being honest. This scanner is junk with a capital "J". Do you have a scanner you recommend?
Думал приобрести себе такой, но с таким качеством не буду брать.
interesting..
The JPG or JPEG Format is known for its artifacts...
FIRST!!!!!