A Super 8 Home Movie With A Case of The Jitters

[Kim Trampus]

I've been transferring several of my home movies lately using a Real Time Modded Sankyo to Panasonic Camera Setup. All have been going pretty well so far except for this one with a case of the jitters. I don't think that it is sprocket hole damage I think that the film may have shrunk a bit. Take a look at this example and see if you have had a similar experience. Second, Do you think that a wolverine would save it?

https://youtu.be/M500tn8wiIQ?si=FetrTmyxq1HLd52t

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

This could be anything: a problem with the cartridge or with the camera, problems with the film (damaged perforation holes, shrunken film, warped film, incorrect splices, …) or a problem with the reel (bent? damaged?) or with the projector (loop former, …).

Unless the problem is caused by the projector, the Wolverine will not be able to fix this. In fact, it will even make things worse as it has more problems with incorrect splices, damaged perforation holes, … (according to various tests here and on other forums).

When the problem is really a shrunken film, then you can soak it in liquids like Film Renew… (I guess that you can find more and better hints here on the forum.) When the problem is caused by incorrect splices, then you can redo them. …

Could you post a photo of the film of one of the sections that cause jitter - and a photo of the reel?

[David Strelitz]

Kim, if you reframe and run the projector in reverse, is it smooth then? If so, then you transfer in reverse, then correct the video file in the NLE.
If not it may well be shrinkage.

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Kim. Run the film and look into the lens. Your eye should be able to focus on the film. Is the film jittering. If it is then you can try a few postprocessing tricks. Can you post the original capture somewhere in google drive where I can access it.

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

OK here's my guess.

The film hadn't been too shrunken, but pretty dried out to the point that it would "slip" too easily through the film gate. Add the pretty high takeup tension to the mix, so the film is literally "pulled" through the gate - hence the upward ghosting.

Sounds counterintuitive but try wiping some film cleaning/lubricants to this reel. That would give back some tackiness to the film - just enough to make it better "stay" in the film gate.

[Ed Gordon]

Could it be a shutter problem? The images seem pretty steady, but they alternate with problematic frames.

Here is a frame that looks fine, followed by the very next frame which is a mess:



There seems to be a pattern of two good frames followed by two bad frames.

I downloaded the video and put it here: https://ufile.io/1goayxf4
The link is good for 30 days

[Kim Trampus]

Thank you everyone for the suggestions and advice. I'm going to try the simple fixes first like the idea of running the film in reverse. And then go to post processing solutions. I'll give you an update on what I'm able to find out.

[Stan Jelavic]

I looked at the video. The frame rate is 24FPS. So not sure if that was the original camera settings or was changed during video upload? I assume that you removed the shutter wheel Kim since the smudges occur during film travel. You can try removing the gate mask by removing a few holding screws. That would expose the perforation holes to the camera. It would tell us if the holes are jittering which would indicate transport issues. Additionally with the holes visible you can run the stabilization filter.

[Stan Jelavic]

Exported the video into jpeg image sequence. Scanning through the sequence there appears to be a darkening pattern which indicates the shutter wheel. If the wheel is left in, you will have to remove it.

[Rob Young]

Would it be useful to examine the film in a viewer / editor frame by frame to see if the ghosting effect is actually present on the frames of film?

If so, then the fault is with the camera or cartridge that shot the film.

If not then next is methodically working through the alternatives.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

I would also recommend to figure out whether the defect images are already on the film itself: defective cartridges, empty batteries or broken cameras can also cause these problems. And when these defects are already on the recorded images, then a digital restauration software is the only cure that is available to us amateurs.

When you don’t have a viewer/editor, then take a smartphone or tablet and make it show a white page (e.g. text editor or a Webbrowser showing https://photomyne.com/backlight ). Put a white sheet of paper on the screen, then put the film onto the paper. Then use a camera with macro function to take a still photo of one of the affected scenes - including perforation holes. Then post the results here.
When you don’t have a proper camera, then use a magnifier.
When you can see the pixels of the screen despite the paper, then remove the paper and make the film „hover“ above the screen. Depending on your camera and the smartphone/tablet, the distance between screen and film has to be something between 2.5cm and 5cm (aka 1-2 inches). Greater distances usually don’t make a difference. Smaller distances usually don’t solve the problem of visible pixels.

And please rethink your options before acting.
E.g. running the film in reverse when the perforation holes are damaged might enhance the damages.

[Ed Gordon]

Would it be useful to examine the film in a viewer / editor frame by frame to see if the ghosting effect is actually present on the frames of film?

If so, then the fault is with the camera or cartridge that shot the film.

If not then next is methodically working through the alternatives.

That is essentially what has been done. Here is frame #167:



And here frame #168:



Frame #169 looks poor also, but frame #170 is fine. The pattern is two good frames followed by two bad frames. I have not gone through all 500 frames to verify the pattern is consistent.

If you are interested in looking at the jpeg frames you can download them here: https://ufile.io/3u6b4ubx#!/t2M011M7GJWLj (link is good for 30 days).

[Brian Fretwell]

But are these stills after your video transfer or direct ones of the original film?

[Rob Young]

Exactly.

[Alwyn Adkins]

I read post #12 as saying that the two images (167 and 168) are from a viewer.