Out of curiosity, why did you chose to capture with a MiniDV camcorder instead of a newer HD camcorder? Is there something about the MiniDV format that produces better results with projections of this kind?

I used a miniDV camcorder because it could pass the footage via firewire live into iMovie HD on an older Mac laptop. Also, the DV format is really handy to work with because each frame is independently compressed into a fixed-size block of bytes. This makes it so that I can go into iMovie and trim out the junk, put titles on each clip to indicate when & what it is, and then run a little utility I made to copy the frames for each segment into its own .dv file with a name taken from the iMovie xml project file, all without any recompression. The image quality seems as good at standard definition as it is in HD, given how it is being captured. That all being said, I can tell the image quality I'm ending up with is only half what it should be if captured properly. But I haven't found a solution under $1000 that is better. The machines that scan frame by frame are all of such low quality that they're even worse than what I am ending up with, even though in theory that should be a much better approach. I wish someone would offer one of those with better optics--or with a way to mount your iPhone or DSLR to take the pictures of the frames. Perhaps someday I'll re-scan all of these when there's a better solution available. In the mean time, this will let everyone see what's on the movies and get some enjoyment out of them, and will serve as an index for that future day to know which films are worth bothering with.

I did something similar in the '90's. I projected on a white wall and used a Hi8 camera, only as a camera, and recorded onto VHS. It's the best I could do at the time for free. A couple of years ago I brought some reels into a shop that transfers these things to DVD. I got the DVD home and was shocked by how bad it looked. I was able to compare my old VHS recordings to the DVD of the same films by switching inputs on my TV as they ran simultaneously. There was no question the VHS recording looked better. The transfer place was cool, they gave me a refund. I want to try again with a better final format. Good to know your experience as I was considering getting a Wolverine unit.

@@DavianSinner Since my comment above, I had my Super8 films scanned with a company using the Lasergraphics scanner. The results are wow. I then denoise a bit with the Neat filter, did some minor color correction in Resolve. I am so happy I went this route and not the Wolverine/Reels route. At $0.50/foot, my six 50 foot reels cost $150 (USD), which is about $25 per reel scanned at 4K. For priceless footage that opens a portal to the past, this is well worth it. If I had 100 Super8 films, then maybe I would get a Wolverine to see what's on every reel, and then send the most precious reels for scanning on a Lasergraphics.

@@randywilson6366 but why with a dv handycam and not with a, say a sony a7siii?

That is so rad!! There are likely cheaper options out there, but if you're not into the whole DIY thing, this could be a good option (especially if you're primarily doing color positive film!!) If you end up digitzing some, I'd love to see it. Cheers!!

I completely forgot to mention I did try that as well! If you go that route, you need to chop everything up (or use a scene edit detection) because it seems like the scanner re-evaluates white balance constantly, so you can't just do a sort of 'one and done' color correction.

It can be used as a projector, see 8:46

@@SweetLouPhotography not sure how I missed that!. but now I'm curious... could that AV out offer a better scan if played into an RCA converter into a computer. :D

@@knoptop --- Did you ever find an answer to your question, that seems like an obvious choice at the very least, but I see nobody talking about it.

@@NorthTonawanda1 Not yet, I' may need to track down a unit and try it myself

@@knoptop --- If it were in any way a superior method then I'm sure it would just be designed that way. Frame by Frame is probably the way to go for a reason. I just ordered one off of amazon for 209 + tax (there was a $20 coupon.) I added up the footage of the 9 reels I have and it's like 2000 feet. At 20 cents a foot (Walmart pricing,) Owning this is half the price of a one-off. If it doesn't cut the mustard, Amazon has a generous refund policy.

I completely forgot to mention I did try that as well! If you go that route, you need to chop everything up (or use a scene edit detection) because it seems like the scanner re-evaluates white balance constantly, so you can't just do a sort of 'one and done' color correction.

@@SweetLouPhotography oh yuck. That sounds so incredibly self-sabotaging. You almost could make it useful.

I have not tried the Kodak film scanner, but I do know this particular model makes its way around the web under numerous different names. If we lived closer I'd happily let you try it out lol. If you wanna mail me a reel or two of yours, I'll scan it for you lol

I've got the Wolverine Pro and it all depends on how good the splice is. If its a poorly done Slice with the Splice tape you can expect it to get stuck at the splice and you have to stop it and just move the film over the splice, or you may get lucky and it may just make the Image jump for a frame , but keep going. It is the main reason you have to stay with it and watch it. Apart from that I have done like 300 Films and its ok. Cleaning the gate an screen is constant thing to do too

​@@Allan- And blow off those dust spots. You can digitally remove them but avoid the hassle.

Nope, you'd need to get it processed first. You would use this to scan already developed film

You gotta!! It's so fun. Definitely not cheap though

Yeah, if you are into the DIY stuff, there are surely other routes you can go!

Thanks for that well-considered comment.

@@pebey comes from experience using the scanners compared to real scanners. Thanks for the compliment.