Capturing super old 8mm reel to DVD?

[AarontheRipper]

My dad has a bunch of old 8mm film reels (the kind with no sound) that he would like to preserve on DVD. I guess the questions I have as a newbie to capturing is 1) Is it possible? and 2) Financially, would it be better to just send it to a studio that could do it? Thanks.

[MOVIEGEEK]

They sell projector to camcorder converters at camera shops but the quality is poor,it would be better to have a studio do the work because the quality is better and their prices are around 25 cents per minute.

[teljeur]

I don't agree. I've done this with nearly perfect results.

First thing is to replace the lightbulp in the projector for a 15 W. Second, if possible, change the camera shutter to slow. I've got a sony PC100E and this one has got 4 settings. I've used the first one. The camera is hooked up thrue a pinnacle DV500 box to the pc. So I capture direct to the HD.

With this settup you can make a verry good copy of old 8mm movies.

If the captured material still have got some flickering you can use virtualdub with a special anti flicker filter.

[AarontheRipper]

As I am a newbie to capturing, I didn't quite follow everything you explained about the process. I need to get a new bulb (for the projector) and then do I output that to a digital camcorder and then to my PC, or do I go straight from the projector to the PC? And if so, what kind of harware would I need to accomplish all of that? A preemptive thanks.

aaron

[housepig]

there's another option, there's a program called 8mm2avi, if you do a Google search you can find it.

It uses a scanner, you put your film on the scanner and scan as an image file, then 8mm2Avi will cut up this image file and output an .avi file.

Or you can tape the projected film using a camcorder, or use a film-to-video transfer device. Or send it out to a telecine house and pay upwards of $300/hour for scanning....

but you might want to check out 8mm2avi

good luck.

- housepig

[Nolonemo]

Figure on around $85 per hour (less if you have a lot of footage) transferred to VHS or miniDV tape. Quality should be much better than what you can do yourself.

Check out http://members.aol.com/filmtotape/index.htm

[Jester700]

there's another option, there's a program called 8mm2avi, if you do a Google search you can find it.

It uses a scanner, you put your film on the scanner and scan as an image file, then 8mm2Avi will cut up this image file and output an .avi file.

Or you can tape the projected film using a camcorder, or use a film-to-video transfer device. Or send it out to a telecine house and pay upwards of $300/hour for scanning....

but you might want to check out 8mm2avi
- housepig

To scan 8mm film you'd better have a SERIOUSLY hi res scanner. Real roughly, 8mm is about 1/3 in. So a 600dpi scanner would give you 200 lines of horizontal resolution, even assuming good light, no fuzziness from vibration during scan, etc.

I suspect filming a projected playback would work better, but I have no experience with it...

[SaSi]

there's another option, there's a program called 8mm2avi, if you do a Google search you can find it.

The URL of the author is:
http://8mm2avi.netfirms.com/

If there is a worse way to capture a movie, it escapes me. I mean, man, I'd rather be working 3 shifts a day flat for the rest of my life than go through the suffering, even for a single 8mm reel. Scan every frame and paste them ? I'd rather invent the a frame feeder (as in Sheet feeder). I tried scanning 35 mm filmstrips (photos not Hollywood movies) on a flatbed scanner with a dia lamp. Very slow for poor quality. Imagine what it would be with negative strips 1/8th the dimensions of the 35mm film.

No offense here housepig 8) , in fact many thanks for a very interesting program and link. But simplicity is a better solution.

I would endorse that the best way is to project the movie on a screen and capture using camcorder. Clean the projector lense before doing the captures. Also, the advise on slowing the projection speed is good. Will help reduce flickering when increasing speed and converting to 25 fps or 29.97 fps. (Super8mm is 18 or 24 fps). If you don't own a good camcorder, ask a friend who has to lend you theirs. If it's a digital one, even better. If it can film in high speed (to simulate slow motion), even better, shoot at high speed (equivalent of slowing down the projection, only better results can be achieved this way).

[housepig]

Sasi -

I totally agree - I wouldn't want to flatbed the stuff either.

But it *is* an option, and one that no one else threw down, so I thought I'd add it in.

Although from looking at the prog (briefly, as I have no 8mm to convert, I was just curious) it looks like you'd scan a strip, let's say 10 inches long. That's (and I'm doing this in my head) about 30 frames. If I remember 8mm2avi correctly, you define the frame area for the first frame in the strip, then it interprets where the remaining frames are and cuts the image and recompiles it into an .avi.

If you had 1 scan that was 8 x 10, you could get approx 24 strips of 30 frames, or 720 frames per scan. Doesn't 8mm run at 12 or 15 fps? So each strip would be 2 to 3 seconds....

yeah, it would be tedious as hell. I'd go with the "project the film and camcorder it" approach, but if I had no camcorder, and a scanner, and a lot of time to play with it....

:P :P :P :P

- housepig

[Urchinn]

Wait, Wait, WAIT!!! To properly transfer 8mm/Super8/16mm to video you should just make some calls and find someone who has a "film chain." This is a handy device which shoots the image into an electronic eye instead of a screen. All you have to do is load the film, plug some RCA jacks in, and press record on your Panasonic E30 (well, that is what I use). The quality is the best... Do not do this any other way or you will watch up with something quaint and unwatchable.

[Rich927]

Go to a good camera store and purchase a light box(cost$50-$75). You then project your film into the box, it has a mirror which throws it onto a small screen which you can then record using a Camcorder. Works best in a dark room. You can experiment with distance and your camcorder settings to get the best results. If you try recording from a projector screen image, it gets fuzzy because the projection screen is not flat and has a texture to it. Did it years ago with a JVC VHS camcorder and got acceptable results. No matter how you do it, you're gonna lose some image quality. Light box works good because you have more control over image size. Recording an 6-8 inch image worked ok.

[wwaag]

Back to the original question.

If you only have a relatively few number of reels or money is not an issue, have it done professionally. I spent a couple months last Fall transferring 9 400ft reels, the equivalent of 72 reels--I still have another 6 to go. One thing you need is patience and tolerance for frustration. There are a number of websites with info and recommendations, but I found that none worked all that well. After a lot of trial and error, here are a few observations.

First, and foremost, you need a variable speed projector, otherwise you will get a lot of flicker which will make the video "unwatchable". I have a Bell & Howell MS10 which projects both 8MM and Super 8MM. Works OK. You can get them on Ebay for anywhere from $25 to $200. I have $140 some years ago. Again the key is variable speed.

Second, projection. I have used both a box, as recommended by some, and just a plain piece of photo paper (actually Epson Matte paper). Don't use a screen. Unfortunately, neither approach is without drawbacks. The box is easier to setup, but there is a big-time resolution fall-off--trying to manually focus the projector and camcorder is next to impossible. The resolution is much, much better projecting onto a flat paper surface. The problem here is parallax--the axis for the projected image and recorded image are not the same. Therefore, one side of the image is brighter. Some people call this a spotlight effect--you still get the spotlight effect with a box, but at least it is centered and not off-axis. For me, I decided that a better quality image was more important than the off-axis hot-spot. As a side note, I have just seen that there are "hot spot" filters available for Virtudal Dub. Haven't used them but plan to in the future.

Third, camcorder. I have a Sony TRV-30 digital camcorder and also an older Sony TR81 Hi8 camcorder. I was simply unable to get the new digital to work well at all. In fact, I had read an article in Camcorder magazine and they came to the same conclusion. At the time of reading the article, I thought they were crazy but eventually came to that conclusion as well. Resorted to use on my older Hi8, which worked OK. Some recommendation. First, use manual focus as recommended by everyone. Second, most sites recommend that you use a fixed exposure. This works well, if the original film was properly exposed. Unfortunately, mine was not. Moreover, the exposure latitude of old 8mm film was a lot greater than todays camcorders. If you use a set exposure level, then some areas will the over-exposed and others under-exposed. I resorted to using auto-exposure (not recommended by most people). It worked OK, except that during transitions from high to low exposure (or vice-versa), there would be very bright/dark frames that would have to be manually removed later using Premiere--anoather pain. Because of these exposure difference, found that using neutral density filters was absolutely necessary. Have a few so that you can control the amount of light hitting the camcorder--ND filters are also a good way of controlling the hotspot metioned earlier. This means that you have to very slowly record the video onto tape (or real-time capture--I preferred DV capture). If the scene changes dramatically, then rewind and adjust the ND filters and go forward again.

If this process seems like a royal pain in the A__, IT IS!!!! Again, if you have only a little film or have lots of money, have it professionally done.

A final word--don't expect super quality results. However, movies taken 50 years ago are usually personal memories, for which quality isn't the main issue. Hope this helps.