New Silverfast feature in 6.5 - Multi Exposure Scanning

[harrykauf]

Keith: The progress bar shows 2 passes in the multiexposure mode. I find the result
much better than what I got with the regular multipass mode. There I would get
pretty blurry results too.

Oh yeah and test it with the demo version to see if it works with your model. I tried it
with a Plustek 35mm scanner and the multi exposure scan looked completeley different
from the single pass, with badly clipped shadows and almost no midtones.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I'm downloading it as I type!

[Clueless Winddancing]

What affect might there be from local vibrating equipment, fans, computers, printers, outside automobile traffic, or even just walking around the scanner?

[Don Miller]

Any more success or failure stories with this technique? The example above is impressive.

[Ben R]

Is it just me or is the new feature noticeably softer than a single pass? I'm new to scanning using a 4990 but when comparing regular to multiexposure the regular has better edge definition and to be honest I'm not seeing a particularly noticeable difference in grain or shadow detail either in 16 bit scans.

[Kirk Gittings]

This is the bane of consumer level scanners. The step motors are not precision enough to provide two scans of equal size or even consistent speed throughout the scan. This is not so noticeable when you do a single pass, but when you try and overlap two supposedly identical scans, the problem jumps out. Sometimes you get fuzzy areas within the scan for the same reason.

Wet mounting can help eliminate other issues. Try doing a "preheat" dummy scan to warm it up fully. I sometimes set up three identical scans back to back as a batch, go to bed, and pick the best one in the morning.

[Ben R]

I tried a full 16 bit scan first, didn't seem to help, you've also solved something that was confusing me, i.e. the parts of the image seemingly OOF that can't have been.

I'm still trying to get a handle on scanning, I'm assuming that the seeming lack of contrast and sharpness compared to my Canon L lenses even after appropriate sharpening is a fault in the scanner, no prime should look that medicore (90mm Caltar IIN f6.8). This is after finding the best plane of focus with the scanner. I have no doubt that there is a huge amount of information still in the neg that the scanner just cannot resolve sharply. The results look kind of like photographing a photograph with a cheap zoom.

[Don Miller]

The results look kind of like photographing a photograph with a cheap zoom.

The 100% view won't look as good as dslr digital at the same magnification. But the much bigger file should make a very detailed print. This should be true for any of the consumer scanners mentioned in this forum. Something seems wrong with your scans.

Back to the main topic. Which flatbeds supported by siverfast have good enough registration to do consistent multiscans?

[Kirk Gittings]

Don, I have owned them all it seems, Epson 3200, 4800, 4900, 750 (currently), Canon's, Microtek's, 1800f (except the i800), none of them do on a consistent basis that I have found. The best was the Microtek 1800f, but it was not good enough that I didn't sell it. Hence the need to do tricks like warm up scans. Some are pretty good brand new but loosen up quickly. It is simply not economically feasible apparently to put a decent step motor in a sub $1000 scanner.

This issue is part of the reason that we talk about enlargement size limitations from these scanners. Even without multi pass scanning it contributes to a loss of real world resolution. I was never happy with a 16x20 from a 4x5 on any of these scanners compared to even an Imacon (which I have access too), which is why I have gone back to getting high end scans on all of my exhibit intended work. I put way too much time tweaking a file, to get the print I want, to waste that time on anything but the best scan. I use the 750 for magazine and prints smaller than 16x20 work all the time.