Page 3 of 4

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 6:37 am
I did test the M-E at both 2000 and 4000 dpi. I can verify that it worked properly at 2000 but not 4000. I scan my 35mm stuff at 4000 and the medium format at 2000.

The latest version (r5) does not add any improvement to the M-E issues. Instead, it added a few of its own. The one-touch IT8 calibration does not work properly. It fails to read the number and prompts for the calibration file. I then downloaded the file, pointed to it and then SF generates an error and shuts down.

On a positive note, I like the frame rotation a lot better than the cross-hairs.

Bob Rapp

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:42 am
by Johannes
hi bobrapp,

did you recognize any quality improvement scanning a 2000dpi image?

theoretically: does ME make sense scanning proper exposed chromes? Microtek 120tf is NOT a cheap flatbed scanner...

has anybody seen a quality improvement scanning Negatives (other scanners) ?

i mean, commercials sais a lot to sell. but how is reality?

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:44 am
Hi Johannes,

I only did one scan to verify if it worked at 2000 and 4000 to test the alignment. I scanned an old Kodachrome slide and there seemed to be little difference.

However, on my Minolta Scan Elite 5400, the difference is quite noticeable. I am not sure it Lasersoft has fully optimised the M-E and the 120tf.


Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:13 pm
by Johannes
are the results of the scans of Minolta with ME (and/or without) better than scans on Microtec 120tf without ME? would be interesting.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:08 pm
by Johannes
I decided NOT to wait for a proper functional ME scanning my slides archive, because honestly I do not expect an image improvement using a microtek 120tf.

maybe other scanners take advantage. 120 tf deliveres scans with very low noise and full 3 x 14 bit dynamic, which is more than enough for chromes and negatives.

most image noise is caused by film-grain. try always to expose film FAST. That means 1/125 or faster. This alows a smooth grain.

The major problem scanning negatives is not dynamic. It is a perfect color reproduction. I would like to see a better solution than manual adjustment of film-curves (Silverfast expert mode). NegaFix is good, but not good enough for a save and almost automatic workflow. A calibrated film-specific Referencetarget for linearization of negative input would be realy usefull (ie. on Kodak Portra Professional Films).

Of course i will try ME again in a later demo, if it is seriously functioning.

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:14 pm
by pshambroom
Has the Multi Exposure issue on the Microtek 120tf been resolved yet? Any updates in site or should I give up on this?

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:19 am
by kevgermany
I think the lack of initial response and subsequent intermittent follow ups shows Lasersoft's interest in this scanner.

However to receive a supported version of the Silverfast you now have to purchase an expensive upgrade and pay for features that don't work or are not worthwhile. & even then then there's no support.

v**s**n works with multi exposure and has for ages. Results are every bit as good as with Silverfast. Give it a try!

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:57 am
I have tested version 6.5r1 and there has not been any improvement in the area of multi-exposure. It had been reported earlier that it does not work at 4000 dpi but does at 2000. This is partially true, sometimes it does work.
I, like most, have upgraded for this feature only to be let down and no apparent resolution in site.


Registration issues, multi-exposure scanning, Microtek 120tf

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:24 am
by mac_n_cheese
Hello everyone,

I too, am experiencing the registration issues associated with M-E scanning.

My preferred medium remains 6x7 transparency film and I need to scan these images at the maximum resolution and bit depth, to allow for all possible uses. Therefore the 2000 dpi or less workaround, isn't an acceptable solution for me.

The Microtek 120tf is an exceptional film scanner and successful scans with other software applications indicates the issues we are facing with the SilverFast application are not hardware related.

Like all of you, I purchased the upgrade expecting the product to deliver on it's promise of increased dynamic range, as demonstrated via the sample images supporting the marketing claims. Clearly, it doesn't.

Unfortunately (as one of the other members suggested), I rarely have the luxury of shooting at 1/125th or above to avoid the inherent issues of long exposure times = increased grain, translating to greater signal to noise ratio when scanning. In fact, I've been holding hands with reciprocity failure for a very long time now, hence my keen interest in a product claiming to significantly improve the dynamic range of scanned images.

I've purchased v**s**n and will put it through some tests towards the end of the week. In the meantime, I'd encourage the fine people of LaserSoft Imaging, to let us all know what progress they are making toward resolving this issue for the quality-minded group of SilverFast customers that own the very capable Microtek 120tf film scanner.

Hope to see some progress soon.


PS: To LaserSoft team, if you need a test subject while working through this problem, I volunteer to help. Just let me know what you need.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:21 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear mac_n_cheese,

thank you very much for your offer to inspect test versions.

Apart from the 4000 dpi problem, please inform me about the behaviour of Multi-Exposure at 2000 dpi (or less) on your side. Do you see alignment problems for this limited resolutions?

On which platform (Mac or Windows) do you work?

Best regards

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:28 am
by mac_n_cheese
Hello LSI_Muenier,

Thanks for the prompt reply. As stated in my post, anything less than maximum optical resolution of the Microtek 120tf is of little value to me. I need reproduce my images as large as possible and then some.

If you think this will help your investigation, I will perform tests at 2000 dpi and less on 6x7 + 35mm positive & negative film.

Would you like me to post publicly or privately?

Thank you.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:34 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear mac_n_cheese,

if you would be so kind, please first inspect scans at 2000 dpi of positive originals (6x7 and 35mm) for alignment problems. Please distinguish horizontal (i.e. in CCD direction) from vertical alignment (i.e. in holder movement direction).

Best regards

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:55 am
by mac_n_cheese
Hi Martin,

Yes, I will do as requested.

It is the early morning hours here in Cleveland, Ohio and I'm off to bed. Will get to this ASAP and post my results.

Do you want me to upload/send images or just report on my findings?

Kind regards,

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:02 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear mac_n_cheese,

a sample image to show your findings would be interesting.

Sleep well!

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:38 pm
by Rocky
Just to let the LSI Staff know that the current release has had little or no impact on correcting the scan alignment issue for either 2000 or 4000 dpi transparencies. So far all my test have provided poor results.

I understand that no one using this specific software has had success with Multi-Exposure scanning on the Microtek Artixscan 120tf scanner? Is this a hardware issue? In other words, is it possible to calibrate this scanner with the SilverFast Ai IT8 Studio (Multi-Exposure) Version 6.5 since the film is never truly registered during either scan? I understand that the calibration is performed after both scans by way of a software alignment process, but can this technique provide perfect registration on a 2000 or 4000 dpi scan?