Shutterstock Test Submission | Bitrate » Noise/Artifacts

[Niles Frasier]

Hi everyone,
apologies for the very 'green' question but... I digitized some 8mm using the Wolverine Data Film2Digital MovieMaker-PRO. The footage is from all over the world including some old concert/celebrity foots, NY Yankees footage, etc.

In any case, in the process of submitting a test clip to Shutterstock-type platforms (just hoping to one day have it be some minimal side-income » rolling the dice), the clip was rejected due to:
1. Bitrate speed @ 20fps » minimum needed I believe is 24
2. Noise Artifacts

Overall, any advice for correcting these two issues without (hope) having to re-digitizing the footage?

Thank you in advance for your help!

[David Strelitz]

I'm not surprised it was rejected if you came up with 20fps. I don't telecine using that kit but having been in video production for 35 years I can tell you categorically that 20fps is a square lemon.
The are two frame rates to consider: your telecine needs to be appropriate to the frame rate the film was shot at 16/18/24 and your file appropriate to video specs and here it gets complicated as your 18fps super 8 has to look smooth at 23.98 or 24 in the video formats...and we haven't even got to 25 or 29.97 and 50p or 60p.
I would have thought that Shutterstock have a submission spec. Study it.
As for the artifacts, what file format did you make and how did you make it and to what spec?

[David Brown]

Niles

You might already know that you have NO control over the speed or compression/bit rate from the Wolverine.

Your only options are to buy a different film digitizer or modify the Wolverine.

If you don't have a lot of film, I'd recommend using our forum's host, https://store.film-tech.com/film-lab...ning-services/

You could search and find that the cost of competent film scanners are out of range for consumers.

Modifying the Wolverine provides excellent results, but is a DIY project. Parts needed to upgrade the Wolverine are on

https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/f...wkeye-telecine forum

The project lead is in Florida.

I have upgraded my Wolverine, and think it will solve your problem, it solved mine. I do not try to sell stock footage, but I found the quality of the Wolverine files unbearable to watch. Some folks are happy with the results.

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

It's possible to use some video editing program to resample them to accepted film speed.
I'd done something similar to this by 1.slightly reducing the original clip's speed to 16.67fps (actually 50/3 fps) then 2.resample it to 50 fps, resulted in each film frame will be displayed 3 times. The result gives me the smoothest playback on most display. (I'm living in PAL land, hence 50p)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_4...ew?usp=sharing

However I'm afraid there's nothing much you can do to those noise artifacts. It's the scanner's characteristics/limitations. You may use some post processing to make it look less aggressive but that's it - sorry about that.

[Niles Frasier]

Thank you everyone! Truly appreciate the help.

As I mentioned, I have hours and hours of 8mm footage from all over the world filmed from the 1950's-80's. This includes some NY Yankees footage, concert footage, cities/landmarks from all over the world, etc.

One last q...basically, am I wasting my time trying to monetize this?

If not, any suggestions on what my best options would be to do so? Shutterstock-route? Sell "as is" to a film-house? Other? Thank you again for your help!

[Niles Frasier]

Hello everyone, hoping someone can reply to my post above because I am at a loss of what to do next, if anything. Can someone please let me know what they think about this footage and if there is any potential of earning some income from it. Times are tight, as they are for many, and I'm trying to look at all avenues to help support my family. Thank you!

[Ozzie Williams]

Hi Niles,

The footage does sound very interesting, and this sort of private amateur 8mm footage does seem to be gathering interest. However, monetising it is not easy at all. The music concert footage may well be in copyright, so it may not be possible to make anything from this as a publisher anyway, and the sports footage is unlikely to be unique as most major events were filmed in this period. Generally, the more people who can recognise your footage, and the more unique it is...the better commercially assuming copyright is not an issue.

In my humble opinion, if I had this sort of footage (which I do!), I would upload the more interesting stuff to Youtube with a watermark, and if it is unique and well tagged, someone may well come along and express an interest in buying the original footage (add revenue of YT is barely worth trying for unless you can meet monetisation criteria, and have exceptional footage).

I fear, other than this, I would consider selling the collection in some way...dare I say it...via ebay with plenty of pics.

Oh, and just to add, I assume you are using a video editor of some sort after scanning. I personally could not manage wolverine scans without this (actually, I can't manage to get good wolverine scans anymore anyway...I have gone back to the wall!).

[Niles Frasier]

Truly truly appreciated Ozzie! Thank you so much, this is exactly the top of advice I was looking for. Thank you again!