How does the Wolverine (1080p) scanner deal with 4:3 aspect ratios from Super 8 film?

[Brian Daniels]

The real optical resolution of the Wolverine MM is around 800x600 pixels. How do I know. I know because i used the same optics that the MM uses and the same sensor but different camera model where I can grab the individual frames and I get only 800x600 pixels for the S8 film. The MM camera produces the S8 images with 1440x1080 pixels so the only way I can explain this is that they resized the images. And yes it is like a digital zoom in a way. Pretty bad.

That's clever. I now get what you did. You reused the same lens, but swapped out the stock Wolverine camera with a different camera that uses the same sensor as the Wolverine MM Pro, in order to glean information on how the MM Pro operates. I reread your first post, but I'm still unclear as to the reasons for why the image ends up cropped. How did you come up with that 800x600 figure?

Is the cropping done because the Wolverine is trying to remove the overscanned bits, out of convenience for the end user? Or, is the cropping done because only part of the sensor is receiving any kind of light to begin with, because of the decision to go with a 6mm lens, so that, rather than show the whole image with a bunch of black pixels, the Wolverine ends up cropping the surrounding black borders of the whole image, before deciding to double up what's left to get to the final 1440x1080 image size?

Regarding your lens quality comment.
The 6mm lens is actually a good quality lens based on my testing. But with the 6mm lens you cover only a smaller portion of the sensor. See my image in the previous comment. Replacing the lens with a 8 or 12mm lens would cover more sensor area and would give higher resolution. But they could not do that because the unit has to support both film formats, so some overscan is necessary and also that would require a larger spacing between the film and the sensor. That means possibly larger unit and a major redesign.

Also, not that I'm trying to dispute the second paragraph, since it kind of makes sense, but why would a 6mm lens cover a smaller portion of the sensor versus an 8 or 12mm lens? I'm just having trouble visualizing why that would be the case.

[John Bakker]

I reread your first post, but I'm still unclear as to the reasons for why the image ends up cropped. How did you come up with that 800x600 figure?

Check his image of the film with the test pattern. This is what the sensor records at 1440x1080. As you can see the sensor registers almost 3 frames. It has to be cropped significantly to give you 1 clean frame. He cropped it down to 1 frame and looked at how many pixels he ended up with which was 800x600 pixels. So this is the real size of 1 scanned frame.

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

In all REAL projector transports there will always be framing adjustment, to mechanically center the film frame to the optical axis. If that's the case it would be possible to use higher magnification lens to cover more sensor area with the entire film frame, while having only slight overscan for final cropping.

Unfortunately since there's no means to optically correct the framing position they simply chose to use low magnification lens in order to cover grossly large area, then digitally crop in heavily to capture only a single frame.

A pretty wasteful approach IMHO.

[John Bakker]

Also, not that I'm trying to dispute the second paragraph, since it kind of makes sense, but why would a 6mm lens cover a smaller portion of the sensor versus an 8 or 12mm lens? I'm just having trouble visualizing why that would be the case.

I think me meant to say that a 6mm covers a larger portion of the film (not a smaller portion of the sensor). An 8 or 12mm lens would give you a higher magnification and thus scan a smaller part of the film, leaving you with with more pixels per frame.
The easiest way to end up with a higher resolution while still keeping the lens system as it is would be to use a camera with a higher resolution sensor. Which is exactly what they've done with the Kodak Reels.

[Stan Jelavic]

Yes that is what I meant. Smaller focal length will cover more of the film gate making the useful area smaller on the sensor. Like when you have a skyscraper image taken with a fisheye lens (very small focal length) will fit the whole skyscraper onto the sensor but your apt window will be tiny and have only a few pixels to it and hence lower resolution as comparing to the 400mm lens.

[Jacek Kropinski]

Talking about Wolverine and Wolverine clones resolution. Here are some results of the my setup that replaces the Wolverine camera with the equivalent camera.

The camera I use here is ELP web cam with the same AR0330 sensor and I reused the Wolverine 6mm lens.
My camera is mounted in the same location as the old camera so the optical setup is exactly the same as Wolverine.
Here is the uncropped image I get with the setup.

Stan, is this setup simply switching out the camera? Or does it require changing boards as you have in the Hawkeye_user_manaul-v13.pdf you published?
As great as that mod is, it is way out of my league, but I would love to get a simple fix like this to improve the capture sensor.

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Jacek,
Unfortunately, there is no way of replacing the camera only on the Wolverine since it is integrated with the main controller. This mod has a separate camera board and the Wolverine controller mounted on top of it. The Wolverine controller is used to run the stepper.
More details are available here at this link:
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/WolverineFix

[Jacek Kropinski]

Hi Jacek,
Unfortunately, there is no way of replacing the camera only on the Wolverine since it is integrated with the main controller. This mod has a separate camera board and the Wolverine controller mounted on top of it. The Wolverine controller is used to run the stepper.
More details are available here at this link:
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/WolverineFix

Thank you, Stan. I just got an old Wolverine on eBay that I will start experimenting with.
I am on Mac OS so the software you kindly linked on GitHub won't work for me, but I've been reading about Rasberry PI.
Has any development been done there?

Everything Pi is so affordable, and I see there is now a Raspberry Pi v3 Camera Module, a 12-megapixel Camera Module 3 which was released in 2023. This should be a massive improvement in resolution. I'm a complete newbie to this fascinating topic, so maybe I'm being naive.

BTW is the Wolverine particular about its power supply? The one I found has no power supply. From what I can see, it uses a regular 12v centre-positive supply. Is amperage an issue?

Thank you so much for all the research and development you have done!

[Mike Chailland]

Hi Jacek,
Unfortunately, there is no way of replacing the camera only on the Wolverine since it is integrated with the main controller. This mod has a separate camera board and the Wolverine controller mounted on top of it. The Wolverine controller is used to run the stepper.
More details are available here at this link:
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/WolverineFix

Hi Stan, do you think your mod would work with the Kodak Reels scanner? I really can’t stand the auto WB that it does and have been looking at alternatives for scanning but still using the mechanism of the Reels scanner. Thanks!

[Stan Jelavic]

Believe this one works:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00Q2E5IXW
I have done RPI solutions for the 16mm real time capture:
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/TRV16H_RPI
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/ELMO_16CL
I never tried it with the Wolverine but Ii believe it should work OK.
You would have to use the the M12 good quality lens with the C-mount to M12 adapter.

Some mechanical work would be required to fit the RPI camera below the Wolverine electronics because you
would still need it for the stepper control. Actually, it may be possible to get rid of the of the Wolverine controller
altogether but would require more work.
The RPI sw should be pretty simple.

The RPI control can be done over WiFi using ssh.
This should also work for the Reels machine Mike.

[Jacek Kropinski]

Thank you, Stan Jelavic Your advice and experience are greatly appreciated!
That 16mm is an absolute BEAST! The results must be amazing.
I'm greatly encouraged to try an integrate the RPI.

Have you done anything with rubber capstan drives and laser sprocket registration?
Or is that getting into huge expense again?
My biggest concern is the fragility of the film I need to scan, and I am intrigued by anything that avoids pulling the film by its sprockets.

[Stan Jelavic]

Thanks Jacek. I have a project half done with the tiny sensor that measures the film reflectance. I.e. if the film is passing by the sensor it will reflect back the laser beam and if a perforation passes by it will not reflect and give a lower reading. The capstan was a pinch type with two neoprene rollers.
I can resurrect the design if interested.

[Stan Jelavic]

Here is the sensor info that I planned to use:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/...S6140D/2798928
Here is the detail of the pinch roller design:

Pinch rollers:
https://www.amazon.com/FUNOMOCYA-Cas.../dp/B0CHSKMJQL
I also got some white neoprene rollers but not sure where. Guess could make your own with neoprene tubing.

[Stan Jelavic]

Here is the picture of the prototype:

[Stan Jelavic]

Another roller source:
https://www.fruugo.us/20pcs-audio-be...2-117896349