[sane-devel] Canon LiDE 90

[Guillaume Gastebois]

Hello,

I made two tests today :

test 1 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITH flag : 
SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : 
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test1.tar

test 2 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITHOUT flag : 
SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : 
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test2.tar

Regards
Guillaume

Pierre Willenbrock a écrit :
> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I try both {0x00, 0x3f, 0x03, 0x26}, and {0x00, 0x3f, 0x00, 0x26},
>> you can find result under :
>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/17_test1.tar
>> and http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/17_test2.tar
> 
> Looks a lot better. The offset*.pnm actually show a black image,
> coarse.pnm is gray. That is good.
> 
> I suspect you are still running with the change in thresholds?:
> @@ -4545,9 +4546,9 @@
>                   val =
>                       first_line[i * 2 * channels + 2 * j + 1] * 256 +
>                       first_line[i * 2 * channels + 2 * j];
> -             if (val < 10)
> +             if (val < 1000)
>                   cmin[j]++;
> -             if (val > 65525)
> +             if (val > 40000)
>                   cmax[j]++;
>           }
> 
> Please undo that change. Should give you a nice 2-3-step offset
> calibration, that actually works(at least i hope so).
> 
> Regarding the output format of the AFE, stay with {0x00, 0x3f, 0x03,
> 0x26} for now. This does not seem to make any difference, but there are
> suspicously many 16 bit words with the binary pattern
> ".... .fgh .fgh ...."(that is, the two middle nibbles share the lower 3
> bits). We may be sampling the digital image data at the wrong times. As
> the most significant byte seems to come through correctly, this does not
> need immediate fixing. (On a second thought, this may affect the offset
> calibration. See the thesholds. We'll see.)
> 
> Regards,
>   Pierre
> 
>