8mm to digital converter from Kodak

[Mike Blakesley]

I'm considering one of these for the dreaded "old family films." I figure I could scan the 20 or 30 reels we have, then I could pass it on to some other "deserving" family member or sell it, but I wonder if any of you Film-Techers has any experience with one of these things. Do they do a decent job or should a person just pony up the big bucks to send the cherished home movies out to one of those scan services?
Capture.jpg

[Leo Enticknap]

I haven't used one of these consumer market capture devices. There appear to be two or three competitor models to choose from, too. From the spec on the Amazon page it looks impressive for the price point: 8 MP sensor, records direct MPEG-4 to a flash card with 1080p resolution. Here is the manual, which gives some more info. A minus for me is that the frame rate of the MPEG-4 files it produces is fixed at 20 FPS, which is significantly faster than most home movie cameras (they were typically 16-18). It also doesn't tell you what the bitrate and color space are for the scanned files it creates, and it does not capture magnetic audio - just the pix. The scan speed is 2 FPS, meaning that it would take 8-12 hours to scan a 400ft reel. But if you're recording to a card and the film is in good condition (no dried out tape or cement splices), you should be able to leave it to get on with it. It has a USB connection, but from what I can see in the manual, this is purely for file transfer, not streaming - capture has to be to a card. I don't know how effective the tint function would be in dealing with faded Ektachrome, or whether you would need to import the resulting files into Premiere Pro or Resolve (or similar) to do that sort of post-processing.

The quality of the scans is not going to be anything like that of an MWA Flashscan or a Lasergraphics, but at that price, this is hardly surprising! Given the volume of material you have, it works out at $15-20 per reel, which is a lot less than a transfer house that actually cares about their film handling and has professional scanners would charge. At that price, I'd say you have very little to lose.

[Brad Miller]

The quality on that plastic piece of junk is absolute garbage, just like the Wolverine scanners and anything MovieStuff makes.

We run 8mm on a 6.5K Lasergraphics at the office. Give me a shout if you need professional transfer services.

One tip you might want to consider is to send ONE roll of film to whichever transfer company you choose and then see what the resulting scan looks like. If you aren't completely happy, send that same roll out to your second choice and compare. You certainly don't want to send off all 20-30 reels of film to an awful operation like Legacybox only to get stuck with a bill for all of those reels that looks terrible.

[Leo Enticknap]

For only $400, it is going to be plasticky and not designed either for broadcast quality results, or with the robustness to handle 24/7 operation for many years. At $50K to $150K depending on options, an MWA or a Lasergraphics is.

There are pros and cons both to doing it yourself and getting it done professionally. A professional transfer house will produce higher quality files. You get to choose the exact form of digital output you want - anything from a 5 MBPS H.264 for casual viewing, to a DPX frameset for long term preservation, and/or import for editing. The operator handling your film will be a trained professional, and likely have access to the right equipment for cleaning, resplicing, etc., as necessary. If you have 8mm elements with magnetic audio, a professional datacine scanner will be able to pull that off as well.

Doing it at home with a consumer machine such as the Kodak one gives you no choice of output file format, codec, and bitrate. The contrast and color range won't be as good, because the optics and chip won't be as good. As against which, many if not most 8mm home movies were not exposed ideally to start with, and so a lot of midtone detail that a professional datacine would capture but a consumer machine won't might not be there in the source footage anyways. And at 2 FPS, it will take a considerable time to capture 20-30 reels. Furthermore, while $400 is not a huge sum, it is not nothing either; and if you don't like the quality of its output, you've bought it and you're stuck with it. So there is an element of a gamble in this decision. If any of your films have magnetic audio, you would need another way of capturing that.

As against which, it eliminates the risk of your films being lost in shipping to a professional facility, and if you have a large enough volume of films and are willing to be patient, it will work out cheaper overall. One possibility would be to use this machine to do the 20-30 reels, and if, when viewing the resulting files, you see any that are of especially high sentimental value, just send those one or two reels to a professional facility such as Brad's, to have a higher quality transfer made of them.

[Steve Guttag]

You also have no idea how good the film path is and if it will abbrade you films, even on just 1-pass. It tops out at 9" reels...which covers a lot of ground but I think we have large ones on some of ours. It makes no mention of sound so if you have any sound movies, those won't transfer with sound.

I also noted that it isn't really a Kodak product. It appears the company is licensing the Kodak name. From the end of the manual

www.kodakphotoplus.com The Kodak trademark, logo, and trade dress are used under license from Eastman Kodak Company. MicroSD and SD are trademarks of SD-3C, LLC. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. Windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the US and/or other countries. All other products, brand names, company names, and logos are trademarks of their respective owners, used merely to identify their respective products, and are not meant to connote any sponsorship, endorsement, or approval. Distributed by C&A Marketing, Inc., 114 Tived Lane East, Edison, NJ 08837 USA. © 2022. C&A IP Holdings LLC. All Rights Reserved. Made in China.

I'm sure its market is those that would, otherwise, send their movies off to LegacyBox and the like. Most 8mm home movie stuff is already kinda wonky with sub-optimal picture (think about the equipment used to take the movies and the "cameraperson." So, it's quality of output is bound to be adequate for the "target-customer." No, it's not going to get you a real scanned output but I suspect, again, the target customers would never pay for the professional level of work that would probably make them look better than when they were first shown.

Back in the early 90s, Elmo had "Telecine" projectors...which were their standard slot-load portable projectors but a CCD instead of a lens and a suitable light source. The shutter was also a 5-wing instead of 3. My mom and I transferred all of our home movies back then to VHS (the medium of the day) and distributed sets to each of us "kids" so we each had a copy that could be shown at the usual gatherings. While far from ideal (VHS output included), they were adequate for what we wanted them for.

It would probably be worth doing it again with digital output that really can get whatever is on the prints. Our families are now quite aged so the "gatherings" are long passed. So, really, they would be for the grandkids and beyond if they wanted to see use in our younger selves (including their great/great-great grandparents.

[Leo Enticknap]

You also have no idea how good the film path is and if it will abbrade you films, even on just 1-pass.

From the description in the manual, it seems that the rollers are recessed, and that the only abrasion points are these guides around the gate:

filmpath.jpg
For older film elements that have not been cleaned prior to running in a machine like this, thorough cleaning of the film path between each pass will be important, both to prevent film damage from abrasive crud buildup, and to prevent hairs in the gate being visible.

It looks like the movement is not pin registered, which removes the risk of perforation damage to shrunken film; but I can't tell from the manual whether the movement is continuous or intermittent. Regardless, this thing appears to be a lot more film friendly than an (pin registered, intermittent motion) Elmo, assuming that the film path is kept clean. As you note, the torque and evenness of the take-up motor is another potential concern: will it pull strongly and evenly enough with a the weight of a nearly full 400ft reel on it?

Still, it's a case of relative risks. One of the most significant when sending material out for transfer (whether it's to Legacybox or a Hollywood post house that would charge in the high three to low four figures per reel) is loss in shipping.

I also noted that it isn't really a Kodak product.

AFAIK, Kodak don't manufacture any consumer electronics products themselves directly anymore: anything with their name on it is badge engineered. An infamous example is their new Super 8 camera, which is actually a rebadged version of the Logmar Humboldt.

[Steve Guttag]

Leo,

My point about the Kodak product is I don't think the idea from this even originated with Kodak. I get the feel that it started outside and they approached Kodak to get the legitimacy. Kodak and home movies go hand-in-hand.

When Mom and I transferred the stuff back in the '90s, all of the tape splices had to go. the film shrinkage didn't match the tape so on Super-8, where the perfs are really small to begin with, it was VERY easy for the "telecine" to jam. All splices were remade with a cement splice (Eumig, as I recall...the kind that does a zig/zag to get more surface area). The "telecines" had no problem with those.

As to film damage due to rubbing...without seeing the actual film path and how the film lays and moves through it, there is no telling. Back in the day, I saw numerous 16mm portables that would develop scratches over time, particularly if the film had an curl to it. I'd take some clean film...mark it up with a red sharpie....run it in a loop for several minutes and look for the red dust (did that on 35mm and 70mm too...which scratching seemed elusive (had one site where the 70mm would develop a scratch...the problem was found on the Christie AW370, where the film would return from the projector...the roller at the bottom of the tree had a screw/nut and there was enough slack in the film (and only on 70mm) while running that it would just barely kiss the nut (platter was to the left of both projectors and only projector 2 had the issue).

[Leo Enticknap]

My point about the Kodak product is I don't think the idea from this even originated with Kodak. I get the feel that it started outside and they approached Kodak to get the legitimacy. Kodak and home movies go hand-in-hand.

Very likely. Presumably Kodak has some sort of QC process that has to be completed in order to allow its brand to be used on third party consumer electronics products, but you never know.

Anyways, unless these things produce results that are even worse than a 1990s Elmo and scratch up the film horribly, I think it's a good thing overall that this new option is on the market. Previously, the only viable options for customers such as Mike who has a typical 1-2 generation of family home movies were (a) camcorder them from a screen, (b) send them to low end vendors such as Legacybox, or (c) send them to high end vendors that service the professional media industries. All have significant drawbacks.

There is a "between B and C" option in the form of the MovieStuff machine, but it costs $5.5K, it doesn't include the PC or software you also need to run it, and it requires a significant level of technical knowledge to use. It's really aimed at people who desire a Cintel/Lasergaphics/MWA quality result, but cannot afford one of these machines, e.g. small nonprofit archives. A consumer with 20-30 reels of home movies is not going to be in the market for one of these. You could have most of them transferred at a post house for that money.

Obviously, a lot of what we've written is speculation, because none of us have actually used one of these "Kodak" scanners, or seen samples of its output. Most of my comments are based on reading the instruction manual. I would definitely be interested in playing with one, if I can ever manufacture an excuse to get one!

[Ed Gordon]

Anyone interested in DIY film scanning should browse the Film to Digital Conversion section of the 8mm Forum (https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/). There are thousands of posts discussing all methods of digitizing film. A professional film scanning service will provide the best results, but there are DYI options that can do an acceptable job.

[Rick Raskin]

I transferred all of my father's and a friend's 8mm movies using the Wolverine product. The transfers were acceptable given the source media. Options for image correction are limited at best and as some of the film was under or overexposed, I was able to compensate with external software. If you are looking for a cheap way to do the transfer, you can probably find a used unit on Ebay. I paid significantly less than the $400 for a unit that had only done 30 transfers.

[Brad Miller]

There is a "between B and C" option in the form of the MovieStuff machine, but it costs $5.5K, it doesn't include the PC or software you also need to run it, and it requires a significant level of technical knowledge to use.

MovieStuff is run by a con artist, plain and simple. His stuff is terrible. He false advertises and does not stand behind his products in any manner. The instant it ships things turn to "you bought it haha now fuck off".

Yes I have personal first hand experience. Stay FAR away from this terrible company.

[Leo Enticknap]

If you are looking for a cheap way to do the transfer, you can probably find a used unit on Ebay.

Good point - there are likely to be people who buy one of these things to do one, average family-sized collection, have no further need for it, and then Ebay it. From a quick search just now, it seems that used examples of the "Kodak" scanner are going for around $250.

As for MovieStuff, I have used one of his (16mm) machines, but not since 2009 and this was a mk. I unit. My impression was that the output quality (looking at it on a reference monitor) was comparable to that of a professional telecine, but that the entire system had more of a feel of a lab prototype than a finished product: required your own PC, software sold separately, quite a bit of integration work to do to get it set up, very slow scanning frame rate, no easy way to capture audio in sync, etc. This was not a unit that I bought - I was simply invited to evaluate it by the owner - and so I don't have any personal experience of business dealings with this vendor.