Wolverine MM Pro workflow newbie help please

[Todd Larson]

I purchased a Wolverine MM Pro to digitize a box of old 8mm and Super8 films of my fathers. I have tinkered with two films so far and I have some questions.

1. Do any of you have a "Best Practices" for this project? I have read the manual and many websites and forums. I have also watch many youtube videos, some good some not so good.
2. I understand every film can be different but do you have a good rule of thumb or guidelines for the settings on the Wolverine?
3. I have some experience with Photoshop Elements 2019 and recently bought 2021. I want to use PSE to edit the mp4s.
4. Do any of you have advice on the proper sequence of editing?
5. Should i crop the mp4 image first or last?
6. Should I apply shake stabilization first or last in my workflow?
7. When should I apply the "Time Stretch" first or last in my workflow?

I am just trying to establish proper procedures before I do all of these films.
I would appreciate any advice or links to websites that would help me with this.
Thank you very much for your help
Todd Larson

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

This might not answer all your questions and probably sounds like a Wolverine-hater, but after reading lots of review/seeing tons of sample videos/playing around with one sample unit for a while. I have to say that it's not up to my request.

- No real manual exposure control, just some sort of AE compensation.
- No manual white balance at all, AWB all the time.
- The latitude is quite limited. On contrasty images (outdoor shot on Kodachrome for example) you can get either highlight or shadow detail, but no both.

The possible solution is to have "bracket scan" - neutral exposure, underexposure and overexposure scan (yes three pass per film). Then select the best possible for each shot in the editing process.

And since the output file will be either at 30fps for early machines or 20 fps for later model, you'll have to do the speed correction in the post to either 16 or 18 fps anyway.
If possible try to keep working in the native frame rate, either 16 or 18 fps from start to finish. I'm not a big fan of frame interpolation (18 -> 60 fps via some AI process for example) since that negates the purpose of frame-by-frame scan in the first place.

To be on the bright side, this Wolverine scanner does have its advantage for sure. Being standalone unit means you can, in theory, start the scan and let it does its job without much attention. When done you simply have it packed up & tucked away and out of sight - convenient. This is something can't be done with DIY setup where the mess would take up half of your work bench, ugh.

[Todd Larson]

Nantawat Kittiwarakul what method or machines would you recommend instead?

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

Well, if you don't mind leaving a pile of mess on the table...



Just managed to make in work in real-time-mode. Currently in the process of "continual improve", but the initial result seems very promising.



Still room for improvement of course! Will try to move on to frame-by-frame capture approach soon.

[Marco De Vitis]

Hi Todd, I'm rather a newbie here but I'll provide the few infos I can:

2. In other threads it was suggested to scan with full zoom out in Wolverine settings. Based on my tests I tend to agree: I saw no quality loss with respect to zoomed version, color balance seems more costant across movie length, and anyway it's easier because you don't have to center the crop for each movie. Also it's generally recommended to use default exposure = 0 unless you have special needs. And absolutely use the lowest sharpness level available!
3. Isn't Photoshop Elements only for still image (jpg etc.) processing?
5. I think it's better cropping early in the workflow, so the following processing is faster because there's less data to process.
7. I don't think an actual "time stretch" is needed: you can simply set the frame rate for the movie so that it will be played at the right speed with the original frames, with no need for frame interpolation.

[Frits Poulsen]

Hi Todd and others,
I'm also a Wolverine newbee, but haven't got the scanner yet, because I'm unsecure on, how much post processing is needed, and how to do it.

The scanned MP4 file is created at 20 fps, but the super 8 mm was normally recorded with 16-18 fps, so playing speed will be a bit faster - right?
To play it on a Smart TV, it requires 25 fps, - right?
So extra frames must be added to maintain normal speed - right?
Can that be done, so that movements still look normal as on the original super 8 film?
Or, no problem at all, because any MP4-file will just automatically be played with the same speed as recorded - also on a TV?.

Any info (not too technical) or examples on how to do this will be very much appreciated.

Txh
Frits

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Frits,
You can do it with ffmpeg. You can do a search on how to install it and use it.

The setpts option will change you speed by changing teh time stamps of the individual frames.

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -filter:v "setpts=20/18*PTS" output.mp4

You can also add additional frames for smoother video but keeping the same speed (interpolation)

ffmpeg -i <input> -filter:v fps=30 <output>

[Frits Poulsen]

Hi Stan,
Thx a lot. I have heard a little about ffmpeg, but was not sure, if it can produce a reasonable result. I mean, by adding (dublicating?) extra frames it must somehow be visible - but maybe not too disturbing.

In your last interpolation example, you use 30 fps - will that not be to much for correct playing the MP4 file on a smart TV, since normal is 25 fps ?

/Frits

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Frits,
If use use setpts option then there are no added or subtracted frames. The time stamps change so that the time between the frames changes and you get the faster or slower playback. Obviously, when you play the frames at a slower rate the flickering increases. But going from 20 to 18 will be probably ok. I have not tried it but there are some people on the forum that are very experienced in this area and may pitch in.
If you slow the playback a lot the flicker becomes noticeable and interpolation is required. Sometimes, interpolation can produce unwanted effects for fast moving scenes. I have seen that, like a bird flying by and gets all mangled up in some interpolated frames. So it is a compromise and you tailor it for your needs.
The interpolation example above is just an example on how to use the command. You will have to play with it until you get something that us acceptable to you.

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

Most video editing software should have an option to alter the clip's playback speed. So it depends on the project settings how much playback speed needed to be altered.

My current DIY scanner setup will output at 25 fps no matter what. I then edit it at that native 25fps frame rate and output an intermediate .avi file for later process. VirtualDub is used for final encoding and adjusting the playback speed to 16.67fps - then resampled to 50p (1 original frame played back 3 times, sort of). This gives the best playback compatibility while still retains the motion "smoothness" of the original film.

This is my preferred workflow. Yours may differ of course.

[Frits Poulsen]

Thanks a lot, guys. I'm not sure I quite understand how this "SETPTS" option can help me. In my 'analogue' world motion speed will change when played with more or less number of frames per second.
But I don't want the motion speed changed, on the contrary, I want to maintain then same motion speed at 25 fps as it was when recorded at 18 fps. I can't see that happen, unless extraframes are added. But I might have misunderstood the whole issue and possibilities with ffmpeg.
Isn't it true that I have to end up with a MP4 file with 25 fps to play it with normal motion speed on a smart TV ?

[Marco De Vitis]

Isn't it true that I have to end up with a MP4 file with 25 fps to play it with normal motion speed on a smart TV ?

Hi Frits,
no, this is not true. In simple words, an MP4 file can contain some information which tell to the player (i.e. to the TV, or an app on a PC) how many frames per seconds have to be played. So if you "set" an MP4 to be played at 18 fps, it will be played at 18 fps on your smart TV.

Of course at 18 fps the movement is not "smooth" like 25 fps, but this was the original speed after all so it's faithful to the source. But it's possible that 18 fps look more disturbing than expected, when displayed on a digital screen.

If you are not satisfied you can try interpolating frames as Stan suggested, by using a video editing/conversion application. It will convert to 25 fps while still keeping the same motion speed, by adding new frames between the original ones. But results are not always good. You can have two kinds of interpolation, as far as I know:

1. Motion interpolation: the new added frames are generated artificially, by interpolating the position of pixels in the two neighbour frames. This artificially creates a totally new position for objects in the movie, i.e. if you originally had frame A with a ball on the left, and frame B with the ball moved to the right, a new frame will be inserted between A and B where the ball is in the middle. But, depending on the object and on the movement, this can often create strange visual anomalies. The wikipedia page has an extreme but very clear video sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
2. Frame interpolation: new added frames are just a fade out / fade in of neighbour frames. In the ball example, the frame inserted between frames A and B will simply be a mix of A+B, showing the ball in both positions, "faded" by 50%. It's like a slideshow where you have fade transition between photos, only faster. This can create the illusion of a smoother movement.

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

This is the second hardest issue of any film scanning process - frame rate difference (the first one being how to get frame-by-frame scan in the first place).
As films are shot at 16,18, or 24 fps. But generally standardized frame rate in digital world would be 24,25,30,50 or 60 fps (just set drop/non-drop frame mess aside for the moment). Some sort of frame rate conversion is then mostly inevitable.
Although some players may be OK with odd framerates but it will never run as smooth as those standardized fps - at least that's what my media player box behaves. So unless stated otherwise I normally finish my job at 50 fps, which will have best compatibility in most cases.

Usually I prefer frame repetition/duplication method to convert the frame rate. Frame blending/interpolation is kind of negating the purpose of frame-by-frame scanning in the first place. However if the customer doesn't care about frame blending I would do the real-time scan for that job - much easier to work with and saves lots of my time.

[Frits Poulsen]

Oh boy, thanks Marco and Nantawat for your brilliant explations. This is the information I have been looking for, for so long.

No wonder, that nobody I have talked to in phote stores ec. have heard of this fps "problem" - it's simply not there, if you're satisfied with playing the MP4 file as it was recorded on your TV with the same frame rate (16fps).

So let me try to sum it up:
You don't have to post proces the scanned MP4 file at all. The MP4 player on your PC or Smart TV can play it at the same fps, as recorded.
However, you can improove the result and make smoother and more natural motions by experimenting with your software options (fps, setpts etc.), dependig on what particular facilities are available.

ffmpeg seems to be a good place to start for a newbie.

So I'm ready and confident enough to invest in the Wolverine or Reflecta now.

Thanks everyone.

/Frits

[Marco De Vitis]

You don't have to post proces the scanned MP4 file at all. The MP4 player on your PC or Smart TV can play it at the same fps, as recorded.

Well, yes, but "as recorded" is an important point.
I'm not an expert on Wolverine models so I do not know how do recent models behave; I own a "clone" of the Wolverine purchased on Digitnow, no brand, which should be the same as old Wolverine base units. My unit creates MP4 files at 30fps, so they would be unusable when played directly, they would be too fast!

Moreover Nantawat says he has issues with odd fps values on his media player so your mileage may vary. I tried a 16 fps movie file on my 2013 Samsung smart TV and it was played at the right speed; it was a post-processed Wolverine convert, and I simply copied it into a USB drive and connected the drive to the TV.
On a PC of course you will have no issues because you have plenty of video players which can correctly play according to the configured fps.