8mm and Super8 films...help

[JennyBear]

What is the best way to convert these to DVD...I have a Super8 projector. I know there are cheap products our there that let you project the film in one end and stick your camcorder in the other...

Is this the best way? What are these products called? Which one is best? Is there a better way?

Let me know...I need to get something done relatively fast.

Thanks,

Jenny

[i_am_dave]

When I converted a bunch of old 8mm's, here is what I did:

I just projected onto a sheet of white poster board. Worked well. But there are a few things that can make it easier:

1) Remember to clamp everything down so that nothing moves when you change reels.
2) Manual focus on the camera.
3) Use a darkened room
4) Place the camcorder opposite the side of the projector you will be working from.
5) Just let the camcorder run while you are changing reels. It is a real pain to try to work them both.

I burned all of our old home movies to DVD and gave them out as X-mas presents last year. Made a big hit!

Almost forgot to mention, there is a guide somewhere on this site on doing 8mm to DVD. Has lots of good info on which filters to apply and how to do the pulldown.
Wish it had been available when I did mine!

[solarfox]

The device you're looking for is called, logically enough, a "film/video converter." They're not as common as they used to be, but any well-stocked photography shop should either have one, or be able to get one.

They typically cost about $60, though, so if you only have a handful of 8mm reels to convert, your better option might be to take the reels down to the above-mentioned photography shop and have them do the conversion for you. Photo shops (and the photo counters at Eckerds and Walgreens, for that matter) have offered film-to-VHS conversion for years,and many are starting to add film-to-DVDR to their list of services. Typically, the service runs from $0.10 to $0.25 per foot of film, with a $25 minimum (or something like that).

Depending on how much film you have to convert, you might end up paying a little more than the converter would cost... but on the other hand, you do have to factor in your own time and effort, plus the fact that when you're done you'll have this $60 gadget lying around that you'll probably never use again and will have to try to unload at your next garage sale.

[mkelley]

Actually, IAMDAVE has it right.

Unless you go to a place that has a *very* expensive filmscan converter that actually syncs to the film, you won't get much better results than projecting on a white surface. *But* the trick is to find a variable speed projector, so you can just *slightly* detune the frame rate to get it to match up to your video camera.

This is actually pretty easy to do (while you watch the output on a monitor) but if you don't get a variable speed projecter you'll be getting sync issues. What's ironic about all this is that even most of the big conversion houses that do this seldom do much more than what I just said (they don't carry the expensive equipment because it's *really* expensive and not cost effective).

Here's a thread here that mentions a lot more (finally ending up with the variable speed projector advice):

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t146576.html

[i_am_dave]

I can't find the guide!!!

There are a few things to keep in mind when encoding.
You will probably have to adjust the color and contrast as old tapes tend to deteriorate.
You will want to adjust the framerate.
You will want to apply a good anti-flicker filter.

Wish I could find the thread that discussed it, it was really quite good!
Maybe someone else out there remembers it. It was posted on the new guides frame within the last month

[JennyBear]

Thanks all, this is very helpful. I have heard yoou need to slow your frame rate down on your camcorder. I have about 50 roles to do...what about somethig like this:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2934750831&category=15257&rd=1

Would that work? Or would it be better to do what I_AM_DAVE said.

Thanks again. You guys rock.

JennyBear

[mkelley]

It's okay, but truly not any better than projecting on a decent matte piece of paper/cardboard (indeed, some have found the hotspots using such a device like this are problematic).

But make some tests yourself and see if the quality is acceptable doing it the easy way. I actually did some 16mm film conversion for Isabella Rossellini recently (to drop a name :>) by just pointing my video camera at a white wall and the transfer came out perfect (it was some early footage of her mother, Ingrid Bergman, to drop another name :>).

[Donny661]

If you decide to do projection, there are a couple of filters for VirtualDub that will get rid of flicker, which is a result of incompatible framerates, and hotspots in the center which are there because of the projector lamp.

If you have a scanner and don't mind taking a lot of time you could try this program. I think this would be the highest quality conversion you could do yourself, but also the most time consuming.
http://8mm2avi.netfirms.com/

[handyguy]

Don't forget sounds, the projectors can make noise. Our local camera shops do it with a much better machine. You do have to pay more. I think some internet shops probably do it cheaper.

If you have a dvd recorder (not writer) you could use the white card trick & create a dvdr with no processing time.

[i_am_dave]

Sound can be a problem. My 8mm movies didn't have a sound track anyway, so when I authored, I chose some appropriate music for the sound track.
If you need to get the sound, most super 8 projectors have an audio output jack. You can connect this to the AV input of your camera.

I agree with Donny661 about using VirtualDub. It has one of the best filter sets available for applications in its price range ( FREE )
The more I use this piece of software, the more I like it!

50 roles of film
If I were you, I would invite a couple of friends over and make a party of it. (at least the capture phase of the project)
If you can keep using each newly played spool as the takeup reel for the next one, you can avoid a lot of rewind time.
Also, If you have someone to open the boxes and hand you reels, it speeds things along.

[Philbiker]

I am in the middle ofa project to convert my family's 8mm film to DVD myself.

There isa big difference between "8mm" and "Super 8". Huge. 8mm runs at 18fps and is silent. I don't much anything about "Super 8" other than it has sound; I think it runs at a different framerate as well. I can only comment on my experience with silent 8mm film. Since you put that in the title of your post I'll relate my experience.

Those transfer boxes look like a great idea, but I used a simple piece of IBM Matte Photo Paper which worked beautifully.

I projected so that the picture filled the paper. I put the camcorder right next to the projector.

I set my DV camcorder's adjustable framerate to 60fps, and cranked the old Bell & Howell 8mm projector up so that there is no flicker at all, approximately 20fps.

I then ran the film and let the camera focus itself. I tried using manual focus but could not focus well enough - tests revealed that the camcorder's focus, though it went out momentarily on very dark scenes and during some transitions, worked better than mine.

I then captured the DV into my computer, and authored the DVD in Pinnacle Studio8. In Studio8 I selected 9/10 speed, which effectively set my speed back to normal.

The results, thanks to Pinnacle's excellent MPEG rendering engine, are quite nice.

Here's a great link: http://film-to-video.com/

[sjmaye]

I set my DV camcorder's adjustable framerate to 60fps, and cranked the old Bell & Howell 8mm projector up so that there is no flicker at all, approximately 20fps.

I am about to do the transfer via the white matte photo paper as described. I will be borrowing the DV camcorder from a friend. Is this "Flicker" noticeable? If so, where? Only after the transfer is complete or on the DV camcorder LCD display?

Also- Are all DV camcorders able to adjust frame rate as you mention?

[sjmaye]

I then captured the DV into my computer, and authored the DVD in Pinnacle Studio8. In Studio8 I selected 9/10 speed, which effectively set my speed back to normal.

The results, thanks to Pinnacle's excellent MPEG rendering engine, are quite nice.

Here's a great link: http://film-to-video.com/

I went to the link you gave. Do you transfer the video to the PC via firewire? And is this raw data considered "archiveable" as mentioned in the link?

I just figured I want to get the film to the PC in the highest quality manner possible. This, I can keep for the future regardless of what might replace DVD. Am I thinking right?

[energy80s]

The only difference between Super 8 and Standard 8 films is in the slightly bigger sprocket holes in the older Standard 8 film. Also some Super 8 stock has a magnetic stripe that can be used to carry basic quality sound (if the original cine camera had a sound recording facility - most didn't). Both run at 18 fps, which was deemed to be the slowest useable speed before flicker became objectionable. Having spent many years converting cine film onto video for people, I have found that the "pointing a camera at a wall" approach gives acceptable quality, but it doesn't even begin to compare with a proper telecine job done on a flying spot scanner.

[NightWing]

Would recomend using one of the film to camera converters.

Which are basicaly an opticle process to more than anything even out the projected image and give you a strait shot instead of an angle.

Sony had an excelent one back around 1985 that would do both slide-projector and photo album pictures. It produce the best with both mirrors and ground glass screen except for a pro setup. You mak be able to find one on ebay or other simular sites.

They do make some cheep ones but the Sony was fully inclosed to keep light leaking from other sources from mixing with the picture.

[Roundabout]

Still another option out there, maybe worth looking at: http://www.moviestuff.tv/8mm_telecine.html
:P

[KnowaLittle]

I second the last post. I went this route and purchased one of these "workprinters". I had ~130 50ft films from 1950 on. I tried other methods but just thought the results were not worth the effort, then I found the workprinters. Beautifully clear, colorful results and no flicker.It took alot of time to do it right, clean the film, etc, but my family has laughed and cried over these. Talk to Roger, he's the man.

[sjmaye]

I actually did some 16mm film conversion for Isabella Rossellini recently (to drop a name :>) by just pointing my video camera at a white wall and the transfer came out perfect (it was some early footage of her mother, Ingrid Bergman, to drop another name :>).

Does the size of the projected image being recorded/transferred make any difference? i.e. is it better to use a large or small projected image or do you just have to make it fill the camcorder viewfinder?

[energy80s]

Make it reasonably small - about 6x4 - this will concentrate the brightness of the image. I actually have a little box that allows for optical transfers (front silvered mirror, rear projected glass screen) but the quality really isn't much better than the "card" method, except that you don't have to darken the room to do the transfers.

Looking at that "Workprinter" site, it seems a bit of a rip off. Over a thousand dollars for a modified projector and standalone lens! Looking at their samples, they are pretty average. I can achieve better then this with less than £100 of gear!!! If you think their stuff is good, you should see a proper cine transfer, it would blow you away.

[Nelson37]

I compared the projector to SVCD method and professionally done VHS transfer, I couldn't tell any difference. This was on 60 year old film that was in fair to poor condition, newer stuff might benefit from the pro method, don't know.

I did not change framerate at any point, capped at 29 fps. There was noticable flicker but I thought it acceptable and appropriate to the medium, these were silent so audio synch not an issue. I could not tell if any framerate adjustment had been made on the VHS transfer, either.

A word on editing, especially really old stuff. Cut nothing. I want my grandkids to know that great-grandpa dropped the camera, and had focus problems. One of the things I was happiest to see, in my hometown in the 1940's, was in one quick, throway, out-of-focus pan shot that showed the side of a public building. There was just one drinking fountain, and no sign. To then discover that my 12-year old had no clue what this was about, and really couldn't understand it when explained, was really what this whole project was about. Preserving the past, warts and all.

[CubDukat]

You would probalby be better off sending the film to your local drugstore and having them transfer it to video, or if you can afford the money, to Super8Sound in Burbank.

Personally, I'm partial to S8S. They use the same film transfer units used by all the major studios.

[energy80s]

And unless you have a shit load of film, it would probably be cheaper than the $1000 plus for the "all singing, all dancing" converter package.

[LSchafroth]

You would probalby be better off sending the film to your local drugstore and having them transfer it to video, or if you can afford the money, to Super8Sound in Burbank.

Personally, I'm partial to S8S. They use the same film transfer units used by all the major studios.

I'm going to capture both methods. I'm going to have one filtered adn cleaned up for viewing.

I will then have the same footage with the flicker and all teh projector sound as is to give a feel of how it used to be.

LS

[sjmaye]

I had my movies "professionally" transferred from Super 8mm to .avi a couple years ago. Unfortunately I just picked a company with little research as to what to look for.

Now I am wondering if I should have asking about sampling rates or something else to maximize quality when tranferred to my PC.

I have begun scanning photos, slides, and negatives. After reading around the internet I find that due to limitations of each of the media I should set the scan rate to ~3000 dpi for film/slides, but only about 600dpi for 4"x6" photograph. Anything above these settings is being wasted because the media is just not that ggod to begin with. Anything below may have image quality degrade noticeably as the image is scaled up (on my big screen TV).

I don't know what setting they used during the film transfer process, but I could ask. Should I be considering doing the transfer again or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[thecoalman]

I have begun scanning photos, slides, and negatives. After reading around the internet I find that due to limitations of each of the media I should set the scan rate to ~3000 dpi for film/slides, but only about 600dpi for 4"x6" photograph. Anything above these settings is being wasted because the media is just not that ggod to begin with. Anything below may have image quality degrade noticeably as the image is scaled up (on my big screen TV).

A 4x6 image even if it's scanned at 150 DPI should look just as good one scanned at 600 DPI on a regular TV. Regular NTSC TV's only have the ability to to display at the equvalant of 720x480. How you prepare the images and the software your using to encode (if that's what your doing) will have more affect on the final quality. For static images I usaully crop the images to either a 16:9 or 4:3 aspect depending on what aspect my video is, resize to 720x480 then apply a slight blur to remove any hard edges so they don't flicker. This seems to produce the best results.

If your intention is to gather the most information from a negative/image what to set the scanner at depends on what it's limitations are. Setting the scanner above what it can gather only upsamples the image which only produces a larger image with no more detail which has no benefit. As you mentioned yuou also have to take into account the image itself.

Your post does bring up an interesting question though, what's the maximum you can get out of 8mm film? The reason it's interesting to me is because if you can gather more detail than 720x480 than a DV AVI allows, having the film "captured" to a larger lightly compressed AVI would be preferable.

[sjmaye]

A 4x6 image even if it's scanned at 150 DPI should look just as good one scanned at 600 DPI on a regular TV. Regular NTSC TV's only have the ability to to display at the equvalant of 720x480. How you prepare the images and the software your using to encode (if that's what your doing) will have more affect on the final quality. For static images I usaully crop the images to either a 16:9 or 4:3 aspect depending on what aspect my video is, resize to 720x480 then apply a slight blur to remove any hard edges so they don't flicker. This seems to produce the best results.

I am scanning for archival purposes, first. Then, I will use various images for my DVD project. I figure I will scan to get the most out of the photos/slides so that if ever lost or damaged I will have the best copy I can. I appreciate your info on prepping an image for a DVD project. I will definitely heed your advice!

Your post does bring up an interesting question though, what's the maximum you can get out of 8mm film? The reason it's interesting to me is because if you can gather more detail than 720x480 than a DV AVI allows, having the film "captured" to a larger lightly compressed AVI would be preferable.

Yeah. Need some advice here. Are there settings or options I should have specified during the film transfer in order to optimize the quality?

I just keep thinking about a regular projector such as at a movie theater. Projects through film and still pretty dang clear on a huge screen. When I I look at my DVD's played on the PC it looks OK, but then gets pretty grainy on a 73" rear projection.

Which brings you back to your source, the film. Of course, one big difference between the theater and my Super 8mm film is the size of the film itself. Kinda like the difference in clarity between a 35mm photo and one taken with a pocket instamatic. It's tough to take such a tiny original and blow it up much with significant degradation.

[thecoalman]

I am scanning for archival purposes, first. Then, I will use various images for my DVD project. I figure I will scan to get the most out of the photos/slides so that if ever lost or damaged I will have the best copy I can. I appreciate your info on prepping an image for a DVD project. I will definitely heed your advice!

That was what my point was, if your scanning above (scanners will allow this) beyond it's capabilities your not accomplishing anything but creating a larger file. BTW those directions I gave wouldbe for static images, if your going to me doing any zooming etc you obviously want a larger image.

Yeah. Need some advice here. Are there settings or options I should have specified during the film transfer in order to optimize the quality?

The question I posed is not for current use but for the future. A DV-AVI or other lightly compressed AVI format will be fine for archival purposes for viewiing on standard NTSC TV but since they are coming out with HD TV's (who knows what they'll have 20 years from now) I was wondering if having the footage "captured" at a higher resolution wouldn't be prudent if you can get more out of 8mm than 720x480 will allow. Similar to what your doing with your images....

[sjmaye]

I think I understand what you are trying to tell me. Many scanners show maximum scan rates that are actually not hardware, but maybe like software interpolation or extrapolation. In this case I would be fooling myself in to thinking I am getting a better image. I will simply make sure I don't use any resolution higher than the hardware can provide.

As for my other question- I just either am asking this wrong, there is no answer, or it is just a dumb question.

I have never transferred film to DV myself. If I were to want to do it, are there settings (other than compression as you have mentioned) that I should consider that can hurt or improve quality?

[thecoalman]

I have never transferred film to DV myself. If I were to want to do it, are there settings (other than compression as you have mentioned) that I should consider that can hurt or improve quality?

DV-AVI is very capable for playback on a TV, however they are doing the transfer will have more affect on it's quality than the format. I'd imagine one of the reasons it's used is because it can be transferred to DV tape allowing for 1 hour of footage as opposed to a little less than 20 minutes on a 4.7 GB disc. Here's a screenshot from my DV cam, it's higher end prosumer cam but still doesn't take full advantage of the format.



EdDV would probably be able to answer your questions and mine better.... EdDv, EdDV please report to the principals office.