[sane-devel] Canon LiDE 90

[Guillaume Gastebois]

Hello,

So, what's the next step ? Re-enabling shading ?

Do you think that last modification "for (i = 150; i..." is necessary ?

Is it time to fine tune registers 52... ?

Regards
Guillaume

Pierre Willenbrock a écrit :
> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yep, I write "for (j = 150; j...." instead of "for (i = 150; i....."
>> Now second set seems good. Result is on : 
>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/20_test1.tar
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> i am sorry, i actually wanted 450, but didn't realize until just now. I
> missed that the calibration dump images are really grayscale images,
> although stored in color pnms. 1 pixel in image is 3 pixels for the
> calibration...
> 
> I hope this fixes that part of the calibration.
> 
> Regards,
>   Pierre
> 
>> Regards
>> Guillaume
>>
>> Pierre Willenbrock a écrit :
>>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I modified lines 4596 and 4712 and reenable SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP flag.
>>>> Result can be found on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/19_test1.tar
>>> Okay, results look good so far:
>>> [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: first set: 191/683,191/482,191/76
>>>
>>> but there must be a little bug in the code:
>>> [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: second set:
>>> 0/-1080773208,8/-1212144018,-1080773236/134721688
>>>
>>> this very much looks like the variables for the second set are getting
>>> overwritten/not initialized. Please try to find the problem(misplaced
>>> brackets perhaps? copy+pasto when calculating the second set?), or send
>>> the source.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Pierre
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Willenbrock a écrit :
>>>>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I'll try this tonight. What is the best : WITH or WITHOUT
>>>>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP ?
>>>>> Not using SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP is a bit counter productive when trying
>>>>> to get black levels on a white-only calibration area.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>   Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Selon Pierre Willenbrock <pierre at pirsoft.dnsalias.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not what i expected, although the debug images are looking good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please try to change the first pixel used for minimum calculation to 200
>>>>>>> at about lines 4596 and 4712:
>>>>>>> -      for (i = 0; i < num_pixels; i++)
>>>>>>> +      for (i = 150; i < num_pixels; i++)
>>>>>>>       {
>>>>>>> 	  if (dev->model->is_cis)
>>>>>>> 	      val =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>   Pierre
>>>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>