Modding the Kodak Reels 8mm Film Digitizer (Firmware Hack)
- Thread starter Mac84
- Start date
Hi,
how do I know what version of the machine I have? Is it A, B or C? I thought it was the first letter of the serial number I have C1725148BK00237. But when I see numbers starting with H, it must be different.
Thanks a lot for the answer.
how do I know what version of the machine I have? Is it A, B or C? I thought it was the first letter of the serial number I have C1725148BK00237. But when I see numbers starting with H, it must be different.
Thanks a lot for the answer.
Can you share sample video footage that displays the issue?
I've had some older film that is warped/cupped to the point where the sprockets are not properly distanced and the pin is having a hard time advancing the film properly, requiring me to manually "pull" the film through and hope that it's able to grab and advance it further.
Also, an unrelated intermittent issue with the synchronization of film advancing and image shutter is experienced by many users (causing some stutter/jumpiness/distortion visible in the top area of some frames. 0dan0 was reportedly able to address this in one of the more recent firmware versions.
Hopefully this piece will suffice as an example.
Edit
I just tried a normal 8mm and it came through fine. No skipping. It looks like a problem with the film.
Last edited:
If that is happening on stock firmware, on all film reels (without sprocket damage), just seek a replacement. This is not some that is fixed with a firmware change.
I'm trying color film and there's no skipping. The advance works fine, so the problem must be with the black and white films. They're probably dried up from age. Since I have a lot of super 8mm, I need to figure out how to fix it.
Since the color ones are OK, I'd like to try your firmware. I'm just afraid of killing the machine with the wrong version. I don't know which one I have or how to find out.
Since the color ones are OK, I'd like to try your firmware. I'm just afraid of killing the machine with the wrong version. I don't know which one I have or how to find out.
People have reported that flashing the wrong version will not harm the unit. Since your serial starts with "C", and the latest units start with "H", I'd start with version "A" and see if that works for you. If not, go to version "B", then "C".
OdanO's Post #496 has all 3 versions of 6.6 attached for download.
Follow the instructions Steve posted at the very bottom of this page (https://mac84.net/8mmlookup/) to the letter. Especially "only use FAT32 formatted SD cards when flashing firmware"
Have fun.
I think you can rule out type A, these are the oldest, and very unlikely to be sold as new anywhere. My one Type A was still called "Reelz" not "Reels", well until I firmware updated it. I would think most new units are Type C, so I would try type C first, then B. The 8mmlookup should be updated with information from more recent serial numbers.
Thanks for your advice. I got the firmware working (type C) and did some before and after comparison. The bitrate improvement is impressive! I'm now looking into improving the resolution with the lens replacement. I hesitated a bit when I saw the lens price ($78 USD), but decided to go ahead anyway. I stopped cold however when I saw the shipping. The only shipping offered was "Express International" (ship to Seattle), and they want $102! Has anyone stateside paid this amount for shipping? I've searched other sites for similar or equivalent lenses, but to no avail. Any advice?
One suggestion is to try https://www.forward2me.com/ to get you a UK mail address, that would then forward on to the US. Yes the shipping is crazy. As I was purchasing three lenses, the cost pair lens wasn't too horrible. So gather other interested and buy in bulk.
Hi, I tried the latest firmware version, but neither version works. Both A and B only have colored spots on the display after restart. In version C, the display works as it should, everything can be set, but nothing is saved to a 128GB card formatted in exFAT. The original firmware wrote to it normally.
EDIT
I tried reformatting the card to FAT32 and the movies are saved on it.
They can't be played, but that could be because the movie is saved to a folder with a different name than in the original firmware. A large card can't normally be reformatted to FAT32. But if anyone has the same problem as me, there is a program exFAT to FAT32 to download that can do it.
EDIT
I tried reformatting the card to FAT32 and the movies are saved on it.
They can't be played, but that could be because the movie is saved to a folder with a different name than in the original firmware. A large card can't normally be reformatted to FAT32. But if anyone has the same problem as me, there is a program exFAT to FAT32 to download that can do it.
Last edited:
I just spent a couple of hours yesterday to read this entrie thread – what a thrill, how exciting, and what glorious work by 0dan0 and Mac84. Absolutely amazing, and the most kudos for your grit and persistence and making this "doorstopper" device actually useful. An extra shoutout for 0dan0's analytical and coding capabilities. Considering that this was his first firmware RE project, I am blown away even more. Ghidra and symbol-less MIPS assembler are no easy ride, and even things like the memory mapping topology got under control. Wow.
My personal knowledge is more in the hardware, image processing and motion picture chemistry space – while I do occasionally write code, it's of a quality nobody should ever see, and nowhere near the ability to RE firmware.
Nevertheless I wanted to add my $0.02 here on the topic, just in case they might be useful for some. I did own a 2nd Gen Wolverine five years ago, and boy, that thing was useless. It eventually lead me to building my own scanner platform (but that's off-topic) – but before that, I gave the device a deep dive and came up with some pragmatic mods, too. You can read more about that in my blog at here.
In a nutshell:
My personal knowledge is more in the hardware, image processing and motion picture chemistry space – while I do occasionally write code, it's of a quality nobody should ever see, and nowhere near the ability to RE firmware.
Nevertheless I wanted to add my $0.02 here on the topic, just in case they might be useful for some. I did own a 2nd Gen Wolverine five years ago, and boy, that thing was useless. It eventually lead me to building my own scanner platform (but that's off-topic) – but before that, I gave the device a deep dive and came up with some pragmatic mods, too. You can read more about that in my blog at here.
In a nutshell:
- The film path of these devices (an I assume the Kodak Reels hasn't really improved here) is a disaster for our precious films. It is designed to scratch. The Winait guys obviously had no idea what they were doing! If you care about your films, it is absolutely worth to take the time and at turn all those fixed studs into rollers.
- Another issue is the fixed width of the film path around the camera area. Film is supposed to be laterally guided by springs, since its width can vary. This is in particualr the case fro Regular 8 footage, since the film was 16mm wide in camera and had been slit to two 8mm strands after processing. That's why it's actual width often isn't exactly 8mm, and these scanners do not account for that. Now you know why Regular 8 films often have transport issues in this scanner and/or get stuck.
- The "pressure piece" is springloaded waaaay too strong. Sand and it down and polish it to perfection, or change its spring load.
- Point 1 & 3 have a background: The torque of the takeup side is way too strong, and instead of using a properly balanced slip clutch, Winait just increased friction to apoint where it balanced out the torque. Not godo for the film. That's why those studs are not rollers, that's why there are so many of them in the first place. A much better approach is to reduce the torque of the take up side. The resistor/pot I suggested aren't a brilliant, but working solution, and easy to implement.
Hello!
Thank you Mac84 and 0dan0! And all the other participants of this group.
Last night I flashed the version 6.6 B released by 0dan0, and I run a comparison test with my previous scanned Super 8 (that dated back to dec 2024 when I first stumbled into this thread).
I'm waiting for the lens and gears to mod the scanner, you can watch the first result.
Both were scanned at full zoom out, then blown up to fit side by side into a 4k frame. The ver 6.6 is blown up more because of the small portion of interest of the frame.
@0dan0 I did three different scans, before I choose the one you see, with Bal +0.5 and Sharpness -1. I need to practice more ... I didn't get how to use the controls.
The color correction was done on a hurry (I started yesterday night
) some plates are inconsistent with the others, but some are quite good! (in my humble opinion). Not a n easy one with many blurred scenes.
From a passionate hobbyist Thank you again!
Thank you Mac84 and 0dan0! And all the other participants of this group.
Last night I flashed the version 6.6 B released by 0dan0, and I run a comparison test with my previous scanned Super 8 (that dated back to dec 2024 when I first stumbled into this thread).
I'm waiting for the lens and gears to mod the scanner, you can watch the first result.
Both were scanned at full zoom out, then blown up to fit side by side into a 4k frame. The ver 6.6 is blown up more because of the small portion of interest of the frame.
@0dan0 I did three different scans, before I choose the one you see, with Bal +0.5 and Sharpness -1. I need to practice more ... I didn't get how to use the controls.
The color correction was done on a hurry (I started yesterday night
) some plates are inconsistent with the others, but some are quite good! (in my humble opinion). Not a n easy one with many blurred scenes.From a passionate hobbyist Thank you again!
Your side by sides are amazing to see! How were you able to get 3280x2464 output with the 0dan0 Firmware 6.6? All I'm able to achieve is 1600 x 1200.Hello!
Thank you Mac84 and 0dan0! And all the other participants of this group.
Last night I flashed the version 6.6 B released by 0dan0, and I run a comparison test with my previous scanned Super 8 (that dated back to dec 2024 when I first stumbled into this thread).
I'm waiting for the lens and gears to mod the scanner, you can watch the first result.
Both were scanned at full zoom out, then blown up to fit side by side into a 4k frame. The ver 6.6 is blown up more because of the small portion of interest of the frame.
@0dan0 I did three different scans, before I choose the one you see, with Bal +0.5 and Sharpness -1. I need to practice more ... I didn't get how to use the controls.
The color correction was done on a hurry (I started yesterday night
From a passionate hobbyist Thank you again!
View attachment 22593View attachment 22594View attachment 22595View attachment 22596View attachment 22597View attachment 22598View attachment 22599View attachment 22600View attachment 22601View attachment 22602View attachment 22603View attachment 22604View attachment 22605View attachment 22606View attachment 22607View attachment 22608
Hello Deano, you are right.
I didn't explain myself well, sorry. I meant that after flashing the firmware, the sensor with mac84 captures 1920x1440 pixels, while with 0dan0 it captures an area of 3840x2464. Then Mac84 outputs a file with a resolution of 1920x1440, while 0dan0 1600x1200.
Original Mac84 capture, Kodak Reels zoom set to full out (no digital zoom) lens 8mm:
Original 0dan0 capture, Kodak Reels zoom set to full out (no digital zoom) lens 8mm:
I used some black tape to mask the "white" area of the sensor to increase contrast (cit. 0dan0).
If I compare the native dimension in Davinci this is the outcome on a 4K plate:
So Deano you are right!
0dan0 file has less resolution and it is smaller than Mac84. It is a 3280x2464 downsized to 1600x1200 with a bit rate of 30-35 Mbit/s that doubles the Mac84 17,5 Mbit/s.
I need to get closer to the film in order to fill the 3280x2464 unlocked sensor with only the frame of interest, discarding the rest of the frame.
The 4K clips by 0dan0 on YouTube show that if you upscale a 1600x1200 clip to 4K, the result looks very good (to me).
I have 29 3min rolls and 24 30min rolls of Super 8 shot by my father, I was already satisfied with the outcome I got with Mac84.
If I want them scanned from a professional lab (ONE 3min roll in 4 K= 70-100€) I'll face an expense that is al lot more than the investment for the Kodak Reels + Lens ecc + my time.
I didn't explain myself well, sorry. I meant that after flashing the firmware, the sensor with mac84 captures 1920x1440 pixels, while with 0dan0 it captures an area of 3840x2464. Then Mac84 outputs a file with a resolution of 1920x1440, while 0dan0 1600x1200.
Original Mac84 capture, Kodak Reels zoom set to full out (no digital zoom) lens 8mm:
If I compare the native dimension in Davinci this is the outcome on a 4K plate:
So Deano you are right!
0dan0 file has less resolution and it is smaller than Mac84. It is a 3280x2464 downsized to 1600x1200 with a bit rate of 30-35 Mbit/s that doubles the Mac84 17,5 Mbit/s.
I need to get closer to the film in order to fill the 3280x2464 unlocked sensor with only the frame of interest, discarding the rest of the frame.
The 4K clips by 0dan0 on YouTube show that if you upscale a 1600x1200 clip to 4K, the result looks very good (to me).
I have 29 3min rolls and 24 30min rolls of Super 8 shot by my father, I was already satisfied with the outcome I got with Mac84.
If I want them scanned from a professional lab (ONE 3min roll in 4 K= 70-100€) I'll face an expense that is al lot more than the investment for the Kodak Reels + Lens ecc + my time.
I have some feedback:
1. to install the 0dan0 6.6 firmware I have to use an 8gb memory card formatted FAT32. The 128 Gb card won't be read
2. to save a clip to the card I need to use the 8Gb card, the 128 Gb (FAT32 or ExFat formatted) is not supported.
With Mac84 there is no issue using the 128 Gb card.
3. How to balance color with 0dan0 6.6? I set a +0.5 or 1.0 that has a bluish tint. The TINT command is now controlling Saturation?
Thank you
1. to install the 0dan0 6.6 firmware I have to use an 8gb memory card formatted FAT32. The 128 Gb card won't be read
2. to save a clip to the card I need to use the 8Gb card, the 128 Gb (FAT32 or ExFat formatted) is not supported.
With Mac84 there is no issue using the 128 Gb card.
3. How to balance color with 0dan0 6.6? I set a +0.5 or 1.0 that has a bluish tint. The TINT command is now controlling Saturation?
Thank you
This is not how resolution works. The sensor has maximum of resolution of 2304x1296 (Datasheet - https://files.niemo.de/aptina_pdfs/AR0330_Data_Sheet.pdf ) the encoder has a maximum resolution of 1920x1440. But the stock firmware (even bit-rate enhanced) only let you view the middle ~600x400 pixels, then scales that up to 1920x1440, or 1728x1276, etc. (not resolution, just blurry pixels.) All the processing is done at 600x400, this is why you don't really see film grain. In my hacks, I took away the processing restriction, and allow you to read and use more of the sensor. It is still a tiny, low res sensor, but I do have it natively running at 1600x1200 stability. The problem is that the lens is wrong, the area of 8mm frame, only shines on the middle 600x400 pixels on the sensor, no matter what firmware. It is a hardware issue. You have to replace the lens to get more resolution, as shown in my demo here:
Thank you 0dan0, I have quite a confusion in my head, but I'm enthusiastic!
I'm waiting for the 12mm lens + rings to arrive, then I'll post my findings here.
I hope that exploring different paths, especially with my diverse background (I know nothing about coding, Arduino, etc.), might be helpful.