Super8 Scanning

[aristotle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the process of digitizing a bunch of my father's old slides, I came across dozens of rolls of Super8 movies.  The old projector is long gone, so I had a decision to make.  A couple of places specialize in refurbished projectors, which aren't horribly priced.  But I preferred to find a way to digitize the film.

 

There appears only to be two options.  One was relatively inexpensive ($300 US) but reviews on the thing were mixed, resolution was limited, and it didn't have a way to account for the frame rate of the original stock (it just produced 30fps, resulting in a speed up in the produced movie file).  Sure, you can adjust that later if you want to muck with video editing software, but still.

 

I ended up trying the Reflecta Super8 Scanner ( https://reflecta.de/en/products/detail/~id.731/reflecta-Super-8-Scanner---------available-in-February-2014.html ).  I thought that I'd share my experience in case anybody is interested.  It's significantly more pricey ($1200 US) but I figured with the cost of sending film out to be scanned, with the amount of film that I have, it'd more than break even, and hopefully have fun in the process.

 

First, the instructions that come with the thing are horrible.  It turns out that this didn't really matter because common sense had the software installed, film loaded, and scanning started within about 15 minutes of unboxing it.  It feels flimsy in terms of how the takeup reel mounts, and overall sturdy-ness, but it works without binding or otherwise messing with the film, so far at least.

 

Once you load your reel, feed it through the system and advance it to the end of the leader, all you need to do is hit the "capture" button in their software application and you're good to go.  Or...good to wait is probably a more accurate way to think about it.  A three minute film real takes nearly two hours to scan!  It seems worth the wait though.  The quality of the output is as good or better than what I'd expect to see if I projected it.  Resolution is 1920x1080.  I can probably get better results with playing around with exposure options (I stuck to default for the couple of rolls that I've digitized.

 

The software feels like something out of the DOS 3.1 era, but it works.  You have to have the scanner powered and plugged in via USB to the computer before it'll allow itself to be invoked.  Once started, you select a folder to save the video to, and you are presented with an image of the current frame of film in front of the scanner.  You can jog the film forward through the leader and on to the first frame that you want the movie to start with (or start on the leader if you want.)  After the thing scans through the entire real, it lets you select between 18 or 24fps and lets you select output resolution.  Then it generates the final output video from the individual frames.  For a 3 minute video, this takes about 5 minutes.  Then you're done.  5 minutes of work and about 2.5 hours real-time for a 3 minute film.

 

All in all, a pricey device, but if you have enough Super8 film to justify it, it's probably worth it.  And now I have friends coming out of the woodwork asking me to scan their film too, so it'll get plenty of use in my case.

 

Oh, and no sound, and it doesn't handle regular 8mm.  Only Super8.

[ramarren]

Interesting; a bit pricey...

 

For $1200, you can have 1500' of 16mm, 8mm, or Super8mm transferred to digital form, including the sound, using several different film to video transfer services. You'd have to have a very large amount of films to scan, and the time to set up and do them, for this kind of device to be worth buying. 

 

Somewhere in my family, there are several boxes of 8mm and 16mm films that were taken by my grandfather and then father. If I can find them, I'd love to get them scanned... 

[aristotle]

Yeah, it certainly is pricey.  In my case, I have about 50 three minute reels, so I used that as the justification that it sort of made sense.  The reality was that I wanted to go that route anyway though.  And I have only Super8 without sound, so the format restriction wasn't so much of an issue with me.

 

Unrelated, before I posted this, I searched the forum to make sure that somebody else hadn't already addressed this 8mm scanning issue.  I didn't find anything specific to scanners, but I did find a (rather contentious) thread regarding Kodak re-introducing Super8, with many understandably questioning why today anybody would choose to use film for video.  I agree that the cons outweigh the pros by a long shot.  Having said that, I find it less likely that people 40 or 50 years from now will be able to find, much less re-format, the digital video taken from cameras today in comparison with the relative ease that one can do it with a physical medium like film.

[chris_livsey]

Having said that, I find it less likely that people 40 or 50 years from now will be able to find, much less re-format, the digital video taken from cameras today in comparison with the relative ease that one can do it with a physical medium like film.

 

As you have just proved now never mind in years to come. I trust you are carefully storing the originals again. Whatever route is used for archiving there is a cost and not just financial, I see it as no wonder Kodak are pressing for Super8 it is a potential cash cow if consumers can be convinced.

[EoinC]

Super8 is undergoing something of a revival. I think, observing my daughter's foray into Polaroid > 35mm > 120, that the overwhelming volume of digital imagery leaves some youngsters looking for something that gives them a sense of individuality. Whilst this may be a series of short-lived fads for some, I see the joy she gets in first seeing what she has created as a memory she will value - I think she's falling in love with this old fart stuff.