Removing Jitter Digitized 8mm Home Movie (VirtualDub)

[BP88]

I have several 8mm films I have digitized that have quite a bit of jitter. I'm totally new to video editing and know absolutely nothing about codecs, plugins or filters. I've read that virtualdub is good for removing the jitter. I have the program installed but have not had any luck copying any .vpf files into the plugins folder. All my video files are mp4 and it will not open any of them. Any suggestions on how I need to proceed?

[Alwyn]

Try VirtualDub2. That will be able to open your MP4s. The VDFs do work; however they've got to go into the correct plugins folder (32bit or 64bit) and you have to run the same 32bit or 64bit instance of VDub. What's the name of the VDF you're trying to load? We can tell you what bitness it is.

If you intend exporting out of VDub2 for the final version of your files, it's best to use the latest x264 codec, which is available in this post.

I would also suggest you attach a short sample of a jittery file so the experts can cast their eyes over it. We have 8mm specialists and AVISynth whizzes who will most probably come up with a better solution that VDub.

[BP88]

Alwyn,

Thanks for the reply. Here is a 15sec snippet of the video I'm working on.

[Alwyn]

That's great, BP88. Yes, a bit bouncy! I had a crack at it (I'm no expert) and came up with the attached. I used an AVISynth script to remove the duplicated frame in every 3 and Virtual Dub's Deshaker filter and cropping to remove the Deshaker borders. The more-skilled members will probably come up with a better solution.

[BP88]

That looks great to me! Thanks for the info. I'm going to give it a try.

[Alwyn]

@BP88, some more stuff:

The Deshaker plugin for VDub can be found here:

https://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm

And a great guide for using Deshaker, written by none other than our own John Meyer, is attached. Detailed, but straightforward. The results I got (as I attached above) were similar to using Mercalli, a commercial stabilising product.

I elected to put the file back into 4:3; my experience is that every player I've used respects the 4:3 shape, and therefore the black side bars aren't needed to force the 4:3 look on a 16:9 screen. Also, if you view the original on a portrait-held phone or an ipad, you'll get a smaller active video area, caused by the burned-in bars.

To remove the repeating duplicated frame, I used an AVISynth script:

SetFilterMTMode("DEFAULT_MT_MODE", 2)
LSmashVideoSource("H:\Videohelp\BP88\15 sec sample.mp4").killaudio()
tfm()  
tdecimate(cycleR=1,cycle=3)
FrameRateConverter(NewNum=30, NewDen=1, Preset="normal")
Prefetch(24)

[timtape]

Really the best way to deal with this is at source, at the film to digital transfer stage if possible. The problem could be unstable triggering of the scanner camera, perhaps from torn sprocket holes (perforations) in the film, perhaps from a dirty or misadjusted perf sensor, or perhaps a faulty mechanical film advance mechanism. Super or regular 8mm film in good condition is way more vertically stable than that.

As Alwyn's attempt shows inevitably the price paid in trying to correct the fault too late in the chain is cropping of the image at top and bottom of the frame as the image has to be culled from the lowest common denominator. So long as the film can be scanned stably, none of that cropping should be necessary. How was the film scanned?

[BP88]

Really the best way to deal with this is at source, at the film to digital transfer stage if possible. The problem could be unstable triggering of the scanner camera, perhaps from torn sprocket holes (perforations) in the film, perhaps from a dirty or misadjusted perf sensor, or perhaps a faulty mechanical film advance mechanism. Super or regular 8mm film in good condition is way more vertically stable than that.

As Alwyn's attempt shows inevitably the price paid in trying to correct the fault too late in the chain is cropping of the image at top and bottom of the frame as the image has to be culled from the lowest common denominator. So long as the film can be scanned stably, none of that cropping should be necessary. How was the film scanned?

I used a Wolverine MM100PRO.

[lordsmurf]

How was the film scanned?

I used a Wolverine MM100PRO.

That is unfortunate,

Wolverines are literally the worst scanners available. That thing is an expensive toy, and nothing is "pro" about it.

Many others have this exact problem, and it's evident from Youtubers sharing their bad results (and then blaming the film).

Your conversion has a lot of flutter, almost jello-vision like, and cannot be fixed. It needs a proper scan. At most, as Alwyn has done, you can make it "suck less". But quality is not there at all.

This original film does not look this bad. The scanner is outputting bad quality.

[BP88]

How was the film scanned?

I used a Wolverine MM100PRO.

That is unfortunate,

Wolverines are literally the worst scanners available. That thing is an expensive toy, and nothing is "pro" about it.

Many others have this exact problem, and it's evident from Youtubers sharing their bad results (and then blaming the film).

Your conversion has a lot of flutter, almost jello-vision like, and cannot be fixed. It needs a proper scan. At most, as Alwyn has done, you can make it "suck less". But quality is not there at all.

This original film does not look this bad. The scanner is outputting bad quality.

I just purchased it so I'll send it back. No point in creating more problems to fix with software. Any recommendations on another brand that doesn't have these issues? (I'm not interested in sending these films off to a professional) I have hundreds of old family films that I want to digitize and it's just not feasible to pay to have it done. I would rather invest that money in a better piece of hardware. Obviously I'm not wanting to spend thousands of dollars to process home movies but I would think there is something out there for $1k or under that would give better results than what I have.

[timtape]

Assuming it's a problem with not just your scanner but the model in general, which I couldnt say with certainty, I've read that there is a gap in the market for an 8mm scanner that gives good, reliable results and is within the budget of most people. You might find more people to discuss this with on the "8mm forum" in the "film to digital conversion" sub forum. Then for information from some real experts in film digitising you could try "Cinematography forum" although be forewarned that some can be dismissive of anything less than top drawer pro gear which comes at eye watering prices!

Best wishes, Tim.

[Alwyn]

I'll second Tim's suggestion re the 8mm forum. Very knowledgeable and friendly folks there who probably will be able to help troubleshoot your Wolverine.

some can be dismissive of anything less than top drawer pro gear which comes at eye watering prices!

Reminds me of...