Making prints from 8mm and Super 8mm film

[rbo]

I noticed that some current scanners have the ability to scan negatives and

slides. Would I be able to get an image off of old 8mm film using a scanner? I

have hours of 1970's family footage and I would love to get photo prints from

this footage.

 

If not, does anyone do this professionally?

 

Thanks in advance

 

RBO

[tom_s.]

Yes, it's possible. If I were to do this (with the Epson V750 scanner I have), I'd find the section I want to scan, and fluid mount it. If I didn't want to chop up the film., I'd take the transparency unit off the top, put the fluid mount frame in place, then replace the transparency unit.

 

The only other was I can think of is sandwiching it in anti-Newton glass. The quality won't be optimal, and dust will be a problem.

[helenbach]

In the past I've done this by copying the frame onto 35 mm colour neg, then working from that. If the film is Kodachrome 25 or 40, then a consumer/prosumer flatbed scanner is unlikely to do it justice, and at the size of those frames the film needs all the help it can get.

 

Best,

Helen

[vsx]

<a href="http://www.truetex.com/telecine.htm"> Flatbed Scanner Digital Telecine (FSDT) Project</a> -

That page is old but if you scroll down he has some sample images from his scans. I've transferred small gauge movie film formats to VHS and DVD for years and it's my opinion that they're best kept as moving images. Google diy scanner 8mm movie film for more like that page.

[alexx]

If a scanner cannot do a top notch job on a 35mm slide, then it will be worthless scanning

a super-8 frame. Likewise, if a scanner cannot do a top notch job on a 16mm frame of

film, an 8mm film frame will likewise be unnacceptable.

 

It's almost backwards, aka bizarro world, the scanner has to be better than 35mm or

16mm slide scanning technology just to get an acceptable super-8 image. As scanning

technology improves, so will the quality of a super-8 frame onto a scanner.

 

I have taken an entirely different approach with decent results. I do a high quality super-8

film to video transfer on a rank cintel system. I master onto betacam sp video but mini-dv

would also work. I then use a Sony DPP MS 300 stand alone color printer to capture one

video frame. It resolves the color video image at 306 dpi and outputs a 4 x 6 inch color

video image. The printers are considered old and outdated and I don't know how hard it is

to get the paper & color ribbon but the 306 DPI is pretty darn good for what was once a

video image. You can probably find one on eBay for well under a hundred bucks.

 

I'll include an image that was created with this workflow.<div></div>

[dave_redmann]

Just to make sure, do you realize that you are unlikely do get even halfway decent quality? The frames from 8mm and Super 8 are so small that enlarging even Super 8 (which is a little bigger than regular 8mm) to even 4x6 inches is the same degree of enlargement as enlarging 35mm still film to more than 24x36 inches.

[rbo]

Thank you all for your imput. I am very impressed with the images that Alessandro posted. I would be quite pleased to get similar results.

 

Thanks, again!

[dave_redmann]

Robert, I certainly hope you can get some prints that satisfy your requirements. However, some of what has been said is completely inaccurate.<P>

 

Let's start with basics: IIRC, once you take away the sprocket hole area from 8mm-wide film, a Super-8 frame is about 5.5 x 4.0 mm. Now take the sharpest, highest-resolution modern transparency film--Fuji Velvia 50--and consider that Fuji's own data sheet says that it's MTF is down to 50% (the usual measure of a film's potential resolution) at about 45 lp/mm. That means, realistically, a Super-8 image is unlikely to yield more than about 500 x 360 pixels, which is about 1.7 x 1.2 inches when printed at 300 ppi or 2.5 x 1.8 inches when printed at 200 ppi. <I>That's the limit of the detail that the film can record, under perfect conditions--there's just no way to get more detail.</I>. And don't forget about grain either!<P>

 

I really doesn't matter what process you use to go from the film to a print. If the detail is not there on the film, it won't be there on the print. Period.<P>

 

The images show as examples are very small. You cannot really judge how a print will look from a 571-pixel-wide image on a monitor.<P>

 

Now as to the inaccuracies:<P>

 

<I>It resolves the color video image at 306 dpi and outputs a 4 x 6 inch color video image. . . . [T]he 306 DPI is pretty darn good for what was once a video image.</I><P>

 

I have no idea where this 306 dpi comes from, but as explained above, you can't get detail that isn't on the film. Coverting to video and then printing from video is virtually guarantied to reduce quality well below what you could by scanning the film. Video has color fidelity, color gamut, noise, resolution, and other issues. Also, video has very limited resolution; even a regular DVD is only 720 x 480 pixles (0.3 MP).<P>

 

<I>It's almost backwards, aka bizarro world, the scanner has to be better than 35mm or 16mm slide scanning technology just to get an acceptable super-8 image.</I><P>

 

No, it makes perfect sense: the smaller the area the scanner has to scan (i.e., the smaller the film frame), the harder job is has to extract sufficient detail/resolution from the film. That's why a flatbed might be fine for LF film and okay for MF film but marginal for 35mm film (to say nothing of Super-8).<P>

 

<I>As scanning technology improves, so will the quality of a super-8 frame onto a scanner.</I><P>

 

Yes and no. Today's better scanners are capable of getting all the detail that exists on the film. The main problem is the resolution and grain limits of the film. Improving scanners can't improve that. And you notice how few new scanners are out there? Don't expect scanner technology to improve rapidly.

[rbo]

Dave,

 

I appreciate the realistic assesment. I do realize what a long shot this was but I thought is was worth the inquiry, and it was.

 

Thanks again.

 

RBO

[helenbach]

<I>"That means, realistically, a Super-8 image is unlikely to yield more than about 500 x 360 pixels, which is about 1.7 x 1.2 inches when printed at 300 ppi or 2.5 x 1.8 inches when printed at 200 ppi. That's the limit of the detail that the film can record, under perfect conditions--there's just no way to get more detail.. And don't forget about grain either!"</I><p>

 

Until I scanned it at 8000 spi I used to believe that there was no point in scanning Kodachrome at more than 4000 spi. Simple lp/mm resolution figures don't tell you everything about the visual quality of film, or about the best resolution to scan at for enlargements. I believe, from my own experience, that Super 8 doesn't reveal its full quality at DV frame resolution, and that it is worthwhile going to at least HD frame resolution, but your technique needs to be good throughout. The higher the resolution of your scan, the more you will be able to enlarge the frame while keeping its appearance as a film frame.<p>

 

Best,

Helen

[elliott_landy]

Helen: How do you scan at 8000 dpi. (you wrote spi, but I assume you meant dpi.)

Has anyone tried to modify a Nikon 4000 or 5000 with the roll film adapter? Or, if you want to cut the film, to use an Imacon or Nikon 9000 with modified 16mm film holder?

How do you scan to HD format - with a Rank?

I have a couple of Sony BM 2100's which project frame by frame and can be pointed at an HD or other video or still camera.

Any thoughts and advice?

[4hungrytummies]

<p>this thread is a bit old, but i can say i have gotten some decent pictures from 8mm film. i would run the film through a projector aimed at a 30" x 30" piece of glass with thin white paper flat against it. on the opposite side as the projector i set up a 35 mm slr aimed at the projected image and took pictures. i had to keep the projector moving, otherwise the bulb would melt the film. </p>

[karin_haze]

<p>i just bought an old b/w 35mm darkroom enlarger and was wondering if I can print Super8 film to photographic paper?</p>

[elliott_landy]

<p>can anyone suggest how to use an imacon 848 to scan an UNCUT roll of super 8 film? There is a difference betweeen an imacon scan and other film scanners, not only because of the 8000 dpi resolution, but because of the better quality, which with 35mm or larger can be ovelooked for most purposes, but when you get into enlarging 8mm film, it becomes more significant and it would be worth the effort. What Helen writes is correct, that despite claims that it makes not difference to scan film, whose resolution is technically below the 8000 dpi level, at 8000 dpi, in fact it does make a big difference and enables much larger and better prints.</p>

[martin_baumgarten]

<p>I offer photos from movie frames as part of the Photo Lab work I do. Usually this was done to 35mm internegative on a movie film duplication unit which attaches to a 35mm SLR camera. The other method was using a photo enlarger or similar type units. Testrite Instrumetent Corporation used to make a CineLarger which allowed you to enlarge your movie frames to either 620 or 120 still film so then you had a large negative to work from. <br>

These days, unless you need the internegatives (still nice to work with FILM you know!), I recommend using such a device or your own setup using a Digital Camera of at least 5 megapixel or larger and copy the frame that way. First clean the movie film frames you want to make photos of. Since so many different cameras have builtin zoom and closeup functions, you just have to make up a film holder or cobble up something from a slide duplicator and plenty of light shielding such as a matt black box from cardboard and something to evenly diffuse the light behind the film itself if you don't have a Light Table. If your Digital Camera cannot zoom in tight enough on the tiny frame or close focus enough, you can use a supplementary lens, even a good quality Film Loupe will work, as an auxilary closeup lens [5x to 10x magnification would work, since you're coupling this with your camera's zoom lens optics as well]. <br>

The resulting quality is pretty good, and a lot depends on the original image quality (focus, exposure, grain etc). Decent size prints to at least 4 x 6 are easily possible, and I have even done enlargements up to 8 x 10 and 11 x 14. All from such a super tiny frame of film! Just amazing. Of course......you will have image degradation due to grain and typical super enlargment artifacts.........but it's all relative to subject, need, and the viewing distance of the final photo (if you're grain sniffing....you're going to find grain anywhere; or pixels for you digital types).<br>

I did a job for a gentleman in England that had his wedding shot in B&W back in the 60s. I restored his old photos, and he lamented how he wished he could've afforded color back then. He did have two 50ft reels of Super 8mm Kodachrome that an uncle had shot. I went through the two reels and took the best frame of each series of shots he uncle had taken; from each time the photographer had set everyone up for formal shots. So, after some 40 years since their wedding, he and his wife got to see Color Photos of their wedding day! Is it worth making photos of movie frames? I would say so! They certainly thought so.<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

Martin W. Baumgarten - P.P.S.</p>

[CORVAIRCHARLIE]

NICE BLOG ABOUT MOVIE FILM ENLARGMENT.   BUT I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER ONE THING.   FOR 100 YEARS MOVIES WERE PROJECTED ON A SCREEN AS BIG AS A FOOT BALL FEALD AT A DRIVE IN.  AND IT LOOKED GOOD.! THERE IS NO LIMET TO THE POSABILATIES.

[CORVAIRCHARLIE]

almost forgot.  most of the films we projected were 35MM

[Glenn McCreery]

If I were doing this, which I am not, I would photograph, using a DSLR with a macro lens, a number of frames where there is not much movement  of the subject of interest between frames, and then use a fairly common astrophotography technique of compositing the stack of images to reduce noise and increase resolution. There are software programs that do this automatically. Nebulosity is one that comes to mind and is available for free. Maintaining border alignment between frames while photographing them might be the tricky part.

[JDMvW]

Although the scanning quality will be lower than a true slide scanner, some things can be done with a flat-bed scanner:

 

And with some rotation, etc. the results are sort of OK

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/2/2022 at 5:43 AM, CORVAIRCHARLIE said:

BUT I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER ONE THING.   FOR 100 YEARS MOVIES WERE PROJECTED ON A SCREEN AS BIG AS A FOOT BALL FEALD AT A DRIVE IN.

Yes, but there's this thing called 'persistence of vision' that visually merges consecutive movie frames shown at 16 or 24 frames-per-second. So you don't actually see individual frames with their obvious grain, scratches, etc. 

Therefore Glenn's suggestion of digitally merging several frames is a good idea. Even just two frames will reduce any 'noise' by a factor of 1.4 and a 4 frame merge will theoretically halve it.

Also, using a digital camera to copy the film gives the opportunity to increase the magnification above what's usually offered by a film-scanner designed to only cope with a 24x36mm frame size. Not something 1/36th of that area. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[AJG]

An interesting thing about persistence of vision--as people watched more movies in the early twentieth century the frame rate had to increase as they became better able to distinguish individual frames and the flickering of images during the blackouts between frames.(Hence "flicks" as a term for movies.)   16 fps was more or less standard at the beginning but by the end of the silent era the frame rate was more like 20-24 in cameras.  Hand cranked cameras in the silent era could also lead to some variation in both speed and exposure--if the frame rate went up so did the shutter speed, while the motion of moving subjects seemed to slow down.  With sound it had to be standardized so synchronization was possible.  Most projectors by the 1930's had shutters that showed each frame twice, thus 48 frames per second effectively.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:15 PM, AJG said:

thus 48 frames per second effectively.

No. It's still only 24 frames per second. The shutter just increases the flicker-rate to make it less obvious to those more sensitive to flickering light. And movie projectors have had shutters almost from the earliest days, to blank out the frame transition. Otherwise you see a vertical streaking from highlight areas.

[AJG]

Projectors always had shutters since a blackout between frames is essential to avoid streaking when the next frame is moving into the gate of the projector.  Initially they had one opening just as cameras did. Eventually a two opening shutter shutter became standard for projectors. Trying to watch a movie where the shutter and the intermittent movement of the projector are slightly out of sync is painful! I've had a bit of fun over the years explaining to people that the screen is dark for half the time the they are watching a film.

[glen_h]

On 11/4/2022 at 7:57 AM, JDMvW said:

Although the scanning quality will be lower than a true slide scanner, some things can be done with a flat-bed scanner:

 

And with some rotation, etc. the results are sort of OK

 

When I was young, my dad had a book on stereo photography. 

One that was mentioned, and shown in a picture, was a Viewmaster camera.  It takes two picture, on the top and bottom half of a 35mm film. 

Then there is a punch to punch them out, and empty reels to slide them into.

Though the actual Viewmaster is one popular toy that we never had.

 

If I shrink the view on the screen to 70%, and look close enough without my (about -6.0) glasses, I can see the stereo image.

There is a big spot on one, though.

Edited November 11, 2022 by glen_h

[JDMvW]

17 hours ago, glen_h said:

There is a big spot on one, though.

Of course there is  -- It's FILM and small....😛