Gstark

I want to edit several reels of old 8mm film before sending out for scanning. The services all talk about just letting them scan it all, then I can edit the digital result. In this case, it seems like I'd be paying for the scanning of a lot of feet of film of no real value. I'm proposing to review the film, edit down to only segments of family value and decent image quality (identifiable people, etc.), then assembling the segments, spaced with a short section of leader on which I can ID the topic, year, etc. This would make it easier for the scanner to create the segment breaks, plus reduce the cost of the scanning, and reduce the amount of digital editing. I can assemble the segments in chronological order for scanning, then digitally edit the segments later if someone wants them grouped events or family groups, etc. Does this sound like a logical approach? How much leader should I place between segments? FYI, I already have an inexpensive film previewer and film splicer. Your thoughts or cautions would be appreciated.

BebuLamar

I don't know how much the cost difference is but I much rather go with the lab recommendation unless you don't have a good mean to edit the movies in digital. I know that a video editing system isn't cheap. Your standard office computer may be too slow and a good software package isn't cheap either.

twowindsbear

Determine the total cost of converting ALL of your movie film.
Estimate the amount of film that you'll 'cut' and leave 'on the floor.'
Compare how much you'll save with the time you'll spend editing the film.

Bipod

If you don't have experience editing and splicing film, steer clear.

It will take hundreds of hours of meticulous work and a great deal of skill and specialized
equipment. If you don't do it exactly right, the splices will cause problems during the scanning.
The chances are good that you will end up with nothing but a pile of acetate confetti .

At a minimum, you'd need a Moviola -type machine and a film splicer. The first step would
be to make a list of every reel and every "scene" on each reel and its frame number index. Then
you have to come up with a cutting plan. As soon as you start cutting up a reel, the indexes are
now relative--so you're dependent on the frame counter on the editing machine. And you have
dozens of cuts to label and keep in order, until they can be reassmbled. And it's very difficult to
handle film without getting fingerprints all over it. Really, you don't want to get involved
in this, trust me....

Entire books are written on film editing. There are lots of conventions and if you don't follow
them, your film will look "wrong". What you have was "edited in camera" and has a sort of
historical validity and artless "primitive" authenticity (I'm guessing). When you start screwing
around with it, it will start to reflect the atittudes and values of 2019, not the year it was shot.
And it will start to look like somebody's bad student film.

Also, your digital scan is likely to get lost or become unreadable within a few years.
(How old is your oldest computer file right now? How old is your oldest photograph?)

Always preserve your negatives and prints--they are irreplacable! Some 8mm was reversal
film -- there is no negative. In other cases, the negative was lost. NEVER edit your only copy!

In real film-making, you edit a positive copy called the "workprint". Then when the director
signs off on the workprint, you transfer the edits to the acutal negative. So you have to make
every splice twice!

The lab is correct: let them scan all the reels, then edit a digital copy on the computer.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

If I had to do it over when I had my film converted, I would do your approach. Edit then convert. Welcome to the forum.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I edited and spliced my 50 ft. 8mm film reels to a 400 ft. reel as a teenager. I used the old Kodak splicer kit with the clear tape strips with the peel off backs to make the splices. Don't recall it being that difficult. The Kodak splicer made a zigzag cut on the film, so when you joined it to another splice and taped them together with the clear tape splicing strips, the splicing deck aligned the film and sprockets correctly, and they made a perfect join on the film. Naturally, hold the film by the edges so you don't leave fingerprints. I played my spliced reel dozens of time with no problems.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I do not know what you mean by how much leader should I place between segments. In short, you never place any "leader"(?) between any segments! I don't know if you're cutting film and sound separate, or do you cut sound film, that sure makes a big difference and there are so many different ways of doing it! But you're right, you should first edit your movie and then send the finished product off to be scanned (even though I would never do that to begin with), you loose so much quality by watching on a TV!

jgudpns Loc: Pensacola, FL

Think several people are over thinking what you want to do. Personally, I think it is a great idea. I wouldn't think you'd need move than a second leader between "scenes". I'd also see if they can break up each segment as a seperate file. Easier to reassemble.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's what I would do.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I remember editing film - you have to have a film editor, so you slowly scan each stretch of film. Any sections you do not want have to be physically cut out and the film essentially taped back together. This results in places that are just waiting to come undone as the film goes through a projector or scanner. It is a very labor and time-intensive process. Unless you have lots of free time, their suggestion is a good one.

Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan

I used a klart film editor years ago in high school. Splices were made with glue and a built in film splicer. Worked perfectly. The only reason I stopped was that movie film was much too expensive for 3 minute bursts

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

I would say it depends on how many 'feet' you have, not 'reels'. Most scanners services charge by the foot. If you can minimize that number by careful editing, I would go that route. Hardly worth ??cents per foot to scan footage you would or will eventually remove, in my opinion, and since you have the editing equipment, why not first edit, then scan?

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

I am a retired film and video editor. Simple answer? If you have the materials, cut the film. Get it the way you want it and broken down into segments that relate to each other. Then have it scanned. You will save your self headaches down the line. Plus, you can do the final digital assembly on something as simple as Photoshop Elements.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

A "few" reels of what you are asking about is fun. Many reels are painful unless it is the only thing you have to do. I had 22-23 rolls of super 8 scanned to DVD (your choice of media) for the kids. They wanted to see it all, so I did no editing. Had them all scanned to DVD for under $100 plus shipping one way. Including a link to the company. Very reputable and easy to work with.
http://gibbonsvideo.com/wordpress1/

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

how many reels do you have and how long is each one? I had a lot done many years ago...no sound movies...all super 8 and 8mm...i was glad i sent it all in because there was some interesting stuff on the reels that i would have edited out. it is not very expensive to have it all done and it is easier to edit as digital than film...you can easily take segments from one file to another. make movies for individuals...add music...still pictures...and so on...

I watched every foot of the movies with my parents back in the 80s and had them narrate the movies and i recorded the conversation and later added it to the movies with music background...