> I have installed SANE with snapscan support, and this works very well.
> However, the Photolook scans look better.
> (see my www page http://www.uio.no/~olews/scanner.html)
>
> I am therfore wondering about the progress for the snapscan 310 backend.
> As I can see from the www page of Kevin Charter there is only limited
> development going on.
Well, I doubt that this is a backend problem, unless the Snapscan actually
supports 12-bit or 16-bit per sample scans.
Your JPEG images make the visual problem immediately apparent, but it is
very hard to decide exactly what the cause of the problem is once JPEG
has destroyed (yes -- really, destroyed) large parts of the image detail.
Can you make lossless compressed TIFF files available somehow?
I had some (limited, because of JPEG artifacts) success in enhancing the
photos from your web page so that the SANE picture was closer to the one
from Photolook. So at least some of the effect of Photolook is in the
enhancement of the image after it has been transfered from the scanner.
Probably more work is needed on Auto calibration (see XSane) or on the
options and previews in the frontends. If the 310 has 12-bit or 16-bit
modes, then the backend should support those eventually, but again there
is no support in the graphical frontends (yet)
Nick.
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com