Page 1 of 1

Will there be ME for the 4000TF?

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:56 am
by PM
Hi all!

Will there ever be Multi Exposure for the 4000TF?



Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:53 am
by Johannes
For what reason? ME is a much overpromoted feature in case of microtek scanner 120tf (my view). Will not wait for it. But would check it out also, if available.

Shadow performance

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:57 pm
by Harald
Multiexposure would definitely improve shadow performance. Many people say this scanner doesn't need any multisampling or similar, but they simply haven't looked carefully enough, or aren't that picky.

If you don't have any highlights, you can crank up the lamp Lightness setting, but if you have texture or color near level 250, it is impossible to simultaneously get perfect shadow performance, as I showed long ago in the article: ... tisampling.

Personally, I have found that multisampling 2 times is a sufficient compromise -- it is not perfect, but does at least get somewhat close.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:56 am
by Johannes
A scan with 48-Bit seems to deliver more shadow-detail as a 16-Bit-Scan, when a customized lightning-curve is applied. don't know why, because adjustments done before conversion to 16-Bit? Will buy Silverfast HDR to make one raw-scan and then play with the parameters. Don't like to scan same image always after changing a parameter!

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:59 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear All,

in my view, Multi-Exposure is an excellent way to increase the differentiation in shadow details. This is especially useful for slides, so that one is able to record the dynamic range they contain.

Technically, the scanner must offer a certain reproducability in the scanned area because Multi-Exposure is performed by multiple scans.

Best regards

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:49 pm
by Johannes
Yes, but what's up with the certain reproducability on a microtec 120tf? multi-scan works fine, why not multi-exposure? maybe there is still a bug in the firmware of microtec 120tf (i use version 1.8). i don't know. isn't the difference that ME is scan after one complete scan-pass while multi-scan scans blocks twice or more but only once the picture? maybe the hardware/firmware is unable to move scan-row to a same position used before after done a complete image-area...

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:46 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear Johannes,

you're right, the SS120 has a firmware problem for scans at resolutions higher than 2000dpi - the physical length of the scanned area varies with the exposure! This is something I have never seen with another scanner.

Best regards

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:50 am
by Harald
LSI_Muenier, you say SS120 has a firmware problem, but obviously you seem to have been coping with it, since that scanner (and ArtixScan 120tf) is now listed as supported for ME.

So, the question arises whether you will be supporting it for ArtixScan 4000tf?

Moreover, the ArtixScan 4000tf is not even listed as supported for Leopard, but I have personally used it under Leopard using version 6.5 of Silverfast since last year! So, what are the specific problems you see with that scanner?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:01 am
by LSI_Muenier
Dear Harald,

Multi-Exposure requires a certain repeatablility of image data when doing scans after another (as ME does at different exposures). This has to be checked thoroughly.

Best regards