Super8 transfer has blue/yellow color problem?
 

I have purchased a Wolverine digital movie maker (not the Pro version), and have scanned a bunch of old Super8 reels.
However the yellows and blues seem to take over the colors on many sections.
Some sections are even blue all over the frames.
Is there anything I can do about this?
When I run the film through my projector the colors are correct, so it is not the film.
I suppose it is the way the Wolverine scans the frames, but there must be a way to correct this issue.

I own Adobe Premiere Pro and Elements if these are programs that can be used to correct it.
Also I am a total novice coming to editing video so step by step instructions are preferred.

Thank you for any advice you have.

If you can't color correct this in post, i guess you have a defective device, if there are no options to adjust on this machine.

As far as I presume the device scans the movie in Kodachrome format, thus the faulty yellows and blues.

The manual should indicate which LUT's you should use for the color correcting, you are not using the software the device came with ? if you know which LUT's to use you could aslo use the Davinci Resolve to do this, you don't need the (paid) Studio version for that.

These are very basic devices intended for consumers to use at home. I used one a couple of years ago just to finally get my family's 8mm/Super8 digitized while my parents are still alive to see it. Previously I had tinkered around with other solutions using my DSLR, an enlarger lens and a modified projector. It was just taking too much time to re-invent the wheel, and when the Wolverine came onto the market I jumped on it just because it's so easy.

But there are numerous issues:

1. mp4 only, with no control over bitrate or other encoding parameters.
2. hardcodes to 30fps, which is just ridiculously wrong for either format (Regular 8mm is 16fps and Silent Super-8 is 18fps). Fortunately there are ways to slow the frame rate without re-encoding
3. TERRIBLE compression artifacts. The mp4 files are tiny and obviously starved of bitrate. You can reduce the appearance somewhat by setting sharpness to the lowest level, but they're still very visible.
4. Sometimes gets off-kilter whereby the resulting movie will have vertical instability. You don't know this is happening until you finish the capture and watch the movie. Oftentimes, recapturing it will solve it but I had some reels I had to transfer four or five times.
5. AGC is on and cannot be turned off. So you often get bright/dark jumps.

There are a bunch of other issues, but those are the main ones. That said, the Wolverine does have value and I'm not one bit sorry that I bought one. I had a ton of old films from my dad and both grandfathers that I had never seen, and no one else in my family had seen for 30+ years (since we got camcorders and never looked back). What's awesome about the Wolverine is that it's a frame-by-frame scanner. Pretty much every other accessible method of capturing 8mm involves projecting it onto something and capturing the projection--flicker and all. The Wolverine does it the *right* way, but their implementation leaves so much to be desired.

OP, I had almost no luck color correcting my footage from the Wolverine. There simply isn't enough chroma (color data) to make any more than tiny adjustments.

I would say that you're unlikely to find much in the way of discussion about capturing film here. The best resource for the Wolverine and its ilk is the film-tech 8mm forum .

You may want to post sample footage you captured on YouTube and link to it--then people can offer specific suggestions.

I remain committed to recapturing all my 8mm/Super-8 when a better scanner become accessible or when I win the lottery and can pay someone with a rank-cintel to do it for me!

Edit: OP what brand/type of film is it? Kodachrome holds its colors extremely well. Ektachrome develops color casts (at least the stuff from the 60s did--Kodak may have addressed that by the 70s and 80s).

The other issue with Super-8 is that it was all formulated for tungsten/indoor lighting. When used outdoors you're supposed to flip a switch to add an orange filter to adjust for the cooler color temperature of daylight. On my dad's camera, either that switch broke or he just forgot to do so, so in a lot of his movies the outdoor scenes have a hideous blue cast. With a high quality capture that can be mitigated somewhat with color correction, but because it wasn't exposed correctly during shooting it will never look as good as it would have with the proper filter in place.

Not sure if that is your issue or not. If you notice the blue cast just in outdoor scenes but not indoor ones then that's a dead giveaway.

I agree the Wolverine (and others under different brand names) are pretty cheap and nasty but at least allow people to view the footage on modern equipment.

Kodachrome and reversal film generally is difficult to capture well even with better digital cameras because of its high (actually exaggerated) contrast. No surprise professionals shot on negative, not positive film.

Part of the problem with the Wolverine may be a cheap LED light source which can often give a strange purplish cast which cant be corrected, but excellent LED light sources have been available for some years.

Here's an example of what I consider a good capture but still it loses out on the extreme bright and dark parts of the image. It's probably also been somewhat processed after capture.

https://youtu.be/zPWFzHJgAUQ

Compared to reversal home movie film, capturing home videotape images cleanly is much easier.

Did some research, i now understand a lot of the features are "hardware locked" i saw some so called "good results" which had very nasty compression artefacts.... there's even een pro version of this device which scales to 1080 ! one should waste money to that, maybe only for the bigger reels that can be placed, composite out is also useless.
Finding a better device (other brand) or a professional service might be better options.
I 've tried the "Glassscreen" method myself, there's no "hotspot" but this method has less sharpness, and has vignetering,
but one has more control, but still have "banding" due to frame rate and the "frequency" of the light source, which you don't have with the frame by frame scan, it would be nice if some could give instructions to modify this Wolverine device...

I know some folks have modded them with a new camera sensor and were capturing AVI. I cannot find a link but I’m looking.

I found some (minor) ones, but these were for the Pro version of this device, which are not of much use in this case.
I think also it's quiet risky to tinker with such a expensive device if the instructions are not that detailed...

There are a couple different efforts in various stages of progress:

Some folks figured out the Novatek chip used in the Wolverine is also commonly used in dashcams. Some hackers had already figured out how to tweak various settings for those dashcams and translated those efforts to the wolverine. They figured out how to adjust the resolution (of the mp4, not the capture itself) and the bitrate. Unfortunately, these modifications apparently don't help as much as you'd expect. I haven't tested myself but that seems to be the general consensus from those who have. You can find more discussion about that here.

Progress is continuing to look for further tweaks that can be made, like further lowering the sharpness to help avoid the artifacts, as well as what would be the holy grail--trying to get the thing to spit out individual frames as jpegs, which would allow for choosing a much better movie codec/settings. Alas, there just aren't enough super-knowledgeable folks working on it so progress has been very slow. Who knows if they will ultimately succeed but I hope they do.

Separately from that effort, a bunch of engineering types over at the film-tech boards I linked to earlier have been working on hardware mods--namely scrapping the mediocre camera/capture system of the Wolverine and marrying its stepper film transport mechanism to a better camera and lens connected to a computer for capturing each frame as a separate image (as I stated above, that's really what you want for scanning film). Looks like they've also just begun a side effort to use a DSLR for even better quality. It's all still a work-in-progress, but it's admirable how much time a few folks over there are putting into the effort.