> Nick Lamb (njl98r@ecs.soton.ac.uk) wrote:
> > There is a third option which won't have me (or anyone else) crying out
> > for the lost precision from messing about with my data in the backend,
> > while avoiding having to put the same code in every frontend...
>
> Like, how many frontends are there? It is easy to implement and if
> it's not implemented then flatbed users won't miss a thing.
True, that's fine also -- I was just worried that people were going to
run off with the last 8 bits of my precision, in the backend ;)
> My frontend *wants* to know about negatives. It wants to know the exact
> film density and do stuff with it. I don't need no stinking proxy
> mangling my pure raw scandata before it enters my precious enhance routines!
Proxies are of course, optional to the user, and potentially optional to
a smart frontend too. The user can just pick the raw backend from the
device-list, and no "stinking proxy" will get involved. Point taken anyway
> The disadvantages you mention are only when it's implemented in the
> backend. The more I thought about it the more I felt that exposure time
> correction should be in the frontend. Anyway I've implemented it in my
> experimental frontend and it works great.
Cool. The only thing I wanted to avoid was unnecessary data-mangling in
the backend. Creating/ modifying a frontend is a much better solution,
and I hope eventually autofocus will work with the LS-30 here, so I can
try some of this properly :)
Nick.
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com