[sane-devel] Epson 1250u vs plustek-45-TEST5
Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:47:39 +0100
On Sunday, 5. January 2003 21:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Hi all;
> The artifact is still there, but I have a more pressing problem,
> I've forgotten the location of the focus variable, at 600 dpi, I'm
> seriously out of registration.
> Humm, might have found it, the comment says "sensor distance" & 16
> is way too high for my scanner, so I'm rebuilding it at 8. Is that
> the right setting for your's Reinhart? In which case we have a
> pretty serious production tolerances problem with this beast...
hmpf, that was my fault. In the meantime fixed - 8 is the correct value.
> Humm, finished the scan at 600 dpi ok, small piece of the original,
> then segfaulted without showing it to me. And thats all it says in
> the shell when it returned. But I didn't acquire a preview first,
> just sent it to do that same scan again. Restart, do preview, get
> segfault at end of forward scan. I sure wish this thing would make
> up it mind. Restart from icon, save prefs (again) first, preview
> works. Restore teeny size & do 600 dpi. Worked, and the
> registration is now spot on. White line artifact still there.
It is not present here nay longer on my 1260, even the TPA
stuff works now. But the code is not available currently...
> I don't think this is quite "Ready for prime time" :-( We still
> have that white vertical line artifact, and the segfault at the end
> of the scan seems to be somewhat of a coin toss. Phase of the
> moon, odd/even minute, whatever.
- phase of the moon! I didn't get any segfaults here after a scan.
> Suggestion/feature request: Can this thing get a focus adjustment
> made available in the gui, and saved in the prefs? We no doubt
> have some users who aren't quite comfortable shuffling around in
> the source code with vi just to get the proper focus/registration
> for their individual scanner, and obviously from this, hard coding
> it isn't going to be optimum for everybody. Mine was pretty bad
> when set for 16, but I remembered 8 was pretty good from previous
> testing, and it still is.
No need to have this adjustment, as it should be okay for all