user34157: I'm looking to digitize a couple of Super 8 film reels using what's called a Wolverine digitizer/converter, which is a device that allows a person to digitize Super 8 film. However, while researching what the reviews had to say, I stumbled upon this paragraph:

[In regard to the image posted by user Laurent Bellier on 8mm Forum regarding the Wolverine device] Neat Video and other software plugins can help lessen the prominence
of the compression artifacts. But they can never recover the detail
lost to those artifacts in the first place. It's a garbage in->garbage
out type situation. The problem with these machines is they produce
mp4 files that are bitrate-starved. Compression artifacts are the
result when there is too much detail for the capture settings to
reproduce accurately. Yes you can make them look a little bit better
but that does not fix the actual underlying problem: that detail was
never captured by the wolverine in the first place--it's permanently
lost.

I'm already somewhat familiar with the concept of bitrate. Bitrate, if I understand correctly, is the amount of information from a video that is being shown on the screen per second. That is why it is generally better to watch a movie on Blu-ray rather than on Netflix because Netflix uses compression algorithms that are much more aggressive since internet speeds are a limiting factors. By watching the Blu-ray version, you are experiencing the movie at a higher "fidelity," since it's being shown at a higher bitrate. In other words, the Blu-ray offers a "truer" version of the movie compared to the Netflix version.
But what I don't understand is what bitrate has to do with MP4 compression artifacts.
Also, what is meant by bitrate in the above case?
The way the above paragraph uses the word "bitrate," isn't bitrate the amount of information that is being captured per second from each frame before the video file is created before applying MP4 compression?
If my understanding of the way the word bitrate is used in the above paragraph is correct, what does the person mean when the person says that the Wolverine device creates MP4 files that are "bitrate-starved"? Does the phrase "bitrate-starved" mean that the device is recording each frame at a low bitrate?
If bitrate-starved means that the device is recording each frame at a low bitrate, what is the cause of this? Is a low bitrate caused by the machine scanning each frame too quickly, resulting in a low bitrate? Is a low bitrate caused by the light source not being bright enough to capture all of the information in each frame resulting in a low bitrate?
And, finally, what do MP4 compression artifacts have to do with a low bitrate of an uncompressed video file? Does it have to do with there being too little information (low bitrate) in each frame? Is that what the person means by "bitrate-starved"?
I really need help with this. I need to know the pros/cons of buying a consumer device vs. going with a professional service. The consumer device is cheaper but riskier as it uses the sprockets to move the film frame by frame, which can further damage old film.

user4426: I don't own this scanner, but looking at the specs, it appears to record in MJPEG mode, scanning one frame at a time.
The MJPEG codec records each frame of video as a JPEG image.  So each frame is compressed using JPEG, which is a lossy compression process.
It then (I think?) has some software which can take the large MJPEG files and compress them further using mp4 h264? compression.
MJPEG is a bit like a flick book of JPEG images - each one is compressed individually - there is no compression across multiple frames.  This means it takes up more space than mpeg-4 compression which does analyse across frames, and so can compress videos further.
With all lossy compression systems, the more detail there is an image, the harder it is to compress it efficiently.  So if an image has lots of speckles and noise on it (like old film often does), this will either make the file much larger, or if the compressor is trying to target a given file size, the areas of low detail will become blocky.
What doesn't tend to happen with video compression is added noise.  By noise, I mean randomised pixels at different brightnesses or colours to the desired signal.  Noise tends to be an analogue artefact (e.g. grain in film or transmission noise ("snow") in an analogue tv picture).  Digital compression systems are terrible at compressing noisy images because every pixel is different (look at this HBO logo as a good example).

34157: <p>I'm looking to digitize a couple of Super 8 film reels using what's called a <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B0785H3FGN" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wolverine</a> digitizer/converter, which is a device that allows a person to digitize Super 8 film. However, while researching what the reviews had to say, I stumbled upon this paragraph:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[In regard to the image posted by <a href="https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011395;p=12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">user</a> Laurent Bellier on 8mm Forum regarding the Wolverine device] Neat Video and other software plugins can help lessen the prominence
of the compression artifacts. But they can never recover the detail
lost to those artifacts in the first place. It's a garbage in-&gt;garbage
out type situation. The problem with these machines is they produce
mp4 files that are bitrate-starved. Compression artifacts are the
result when there is too much detail for the capture settings to
reproduce accurately. Yes you can make them look a little bit better
but that does not fix the actual underlying problem: that detail was
never captured by the wolverine in the first place--it's permanently
lost.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm already somewhat familiar with the concept of bitrate. Bitrate, if I understand correctly, is the amount of information from a video that is being shown on the screen per second. That is why it is generally better to watch a movie on Blu-ray rather than on Netflix because Netflix uses compression algorithms that are much more aggressive since internet speeds are a limiting factors. By watching the Blu-ray version, you are experiencing the movie at a higher &quot;fidelity,&quot; since it's being shown at a higher bitrate. In other words, the Blu-ray offers a &quot;truer&quot; version of the movie compared to the Netflix version.</p>
<p>But what I don't understand is what bitrate has to do with MP4 compression artifacts.</p>
<p>Also, what is meant by bitrate in the above case?</p>
<p>The way the above paragraph uses the word &quot;bitrate,&quot; isn't bitrate the amount of information that is being captured per second from each frame <em>before</em> the video file is created <em>before</em> applying MP4 compression?</p>
<p>If my understanding of the way the word bitrate is used in the above paragraph is correct, what does the person mean when the person says that the Wolverine device creates MP4 files that are &quot;bitrate-starved&quot;? Does the phrase &quot;bitrate-starved&quot; mean that the device is recording each frame <em>at a low bitrate</em>?</p>
<p>If bitrate-starved means that the device is recording each frame at a low bitrate, what is the cause of this? Is a low bitrate caused by the machine scanning each frame too quickly, resulting in a low bitrate? Is a low bitrate caused by the light source not being bright enough to capture all of the information in each frame resulting in a low bitrate?</p>
<p>And, finally, what do MP4 compression artifacts have to do with a low bitrate of an uncompressed video file? Does it have to do with there being too little information (low bitrate) in each frame? Is that what the person means by &quot;bitrate-starved&quot;?</p>
<p>I really need help with this. I need to know the pros/cons of buying a consumer device vs. going with a professional service. The consumer device is cheaper but riskier as it uses the sprockets to move the film frame by frame, which can further damage old film.</p>
 4426: <p>I don't own this scanner, but <a href="https://www.wolverinedata.com/assets/downloads/MovieMaker_PRO_V_3.0_Manual_.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">looking at the specs</a>, it appears to record in MJPEG mode, scanning one frame at a time.</p>
<p>The MJPEG codec records each frame of video as a JPEG image.  So each frame is compressed using JPEG, which is a lossy compression process.</p>
<p>It then (I think?) has some software which can take the large MJPEG files and compress them further using mp4 h264? compression.</p>
<p>MJPEG is a bit like a flick book of JPEG images - each one is compressed individually - there is no compression across multiple frames.  This means it takes up more space than mpeg-4 compression which does analyse across frames, and so can compress videos further.</p>
<p>With all lossy compression systems, the more detail there is an image, the harder it is to compress it efficiently.  So if an image has lots of speckles and noise on it (like old film often does), this will either make the file much larger, or if the compressor is trying to target a given file size, the areas of low detail will become blocky.</p>
<p>What <em>doesn't</em> tend to happen with video compression is added noise.  By noise, I mean randomised pixels at different brightnesses or colours to the desired signal.  Noise tends to be an analogue artefact (e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">grain in film</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(video)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">transmission noise</a> (&quot;snow&quot;) in an analogue tv picture).  Digital compression systems are terrible at compressing noisy images because every pixel is different (look at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Oh7HizY5I&amp;ab_channel=bstore" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this HBO logo</a> as a good example).</p>
