About the shortest, and least intimidating, account of frame by frame capture I've come across is by Pol Fieldman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZniFhJR17M. This, and his generous answers to the many question below, seem almost a textbook on how to do it. His "wet gate" method (another is in the lower of the two videos at https://filmfabriek.nl/filmfabriek-hds-scanner/) and post production treatment seem to account for a large part of the stunning results demonstrated.
Skilful original film camerawork, combined with rock steady, frame by frame "wet gate" transport and extensive post production, result in almost unbelievably serene transfers that hardly look as though they originated on film at all.
It takes an absence of only one of these (fine camerawork in the filmfabriek transfer example, or less than rock steady transfer in the video example at https://vintage-home-movies.co.uk/20...e-early-1960s/) to suddenly be reminded that we're looking at film.
In consideration that my family were nowhere near as skilled as Pol's dad in hefting an 8mm camera, I'll probably go the route originally intended (http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/fo...-video-capture). But I wonder if others are struck by the slightly unreal feel of Pol's fabulous transfers. We may have simply grown used to the feel of film, as so many professional film makers who insist on shooting on film have. After all, remarkably good transfers have been achieved with the simplest of set-ups, as James Miller and John Yapp have already demonstrated in the above thread. So just how necessary is frame by frame transport for successful transfers?
What do other readers feel?
Comment