>Hiya,
>
>I (the microtek(1) author) have essentially been in hibernation for the
>last 7 months --- I haven't even used my own scanner; I haven't even
>tried xsane!
>This weekend I'll download fresh source code and get back into the
>swing of things, i.e. try to remember the last few things I was
>trying to do with the backeFrom: "Irv Thomae" <irv.thomae@succinct.com>
Hello, Matt-
Have you had a chance yet to review the captured stderr log I sent
on July 18?
Just ran another test, this time with the SANE_DEBUG_ variables
"SANEI_SCSI" as well as "MICROTEK" each set=255. I had that such a
log might show even more information, but the failure region looks
identical to that taken with SANE_DEBUG_MICROTEK=192:
[sanei_init_debug]: Setting debug level of microtek to 255.
[microtek] sane_init: MICROTEK says hello! (v0.10.1)
[microtek] sane_init: config- b0t4l0
[microtek] attach_scanner: b0t4l0
[microtek] attach_scanner: opening b0t4l0
[sanei_init_debug]: Setting debug level of sanei_scsi to 255.
....(reading of scanner capabilites omitted here)
[microtek] .wait_ready 0...
[microtek] .compare_mode_sense 0...
CMS: 0( 0) 64( 0) 8( 0) 1( 0) 7( 0) 7( 0) 0( 0) ff( 0) 80( 0) 7(
0) 7( 0) 0( 0) ff( 0) 80( 0) 7( 0) 7( 0) 0( 0) ff( 0) 80( 0)
[microtek] finagle_precal: must precalibrate!
[microtek] do_precalibrate...
[microtek] .wait_ready 0...
[microtek] .scanning_frame...
[microtek] .scanning_frame: in- 0,0 591,4
[microtek] .scanning_frame: out- 0,0 591,4
SF: 4 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 4f 2 4 0
[microtek] .accessory...
AC: 10 0 0 0 f2 0
[microtek] .mode_select 0...
[microtek] .mode_select: pap_len: 3505
MSL: 15 0 0 0 b 0 8b 64 7 7 0 1 0 ff b1 d 80
[microtek] .mode_select_1 0...
MSL1: 16 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[microtek] .wait_ready 0...
[microtek] .start_scan...
SS: 1b 0 0 0 41 0
[microtek] .get_scan_status 0...
[microtek] get_scan_status(6): 0, 592, 5 -> #0
[microtek] > 0 50 2 5 0 0
[microtek] .stop_scan...
SPS:1b 0 0 0 0 0
[microtek] .wait_ready 0...
[microtek] do_precalibrate done.
(It always gets this far without trouble)
[microtek] .scanning_frame...
[microtek] .scanning_frame: in- 0,0 591,591
[microtek] .scanning_frame: out- 0,0 591,591
SF: 4 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 4f 2 4f 2
[microtek] .accessory...
AC: 10 0 0 0 f2 0
[microtek] .download_gamma...
[microtek] .mode_select 0...
[microtek] .mode_select: pap_len: 3505
MSL: 15 0 0 0 b 0 8b 64 7 7 0 1 0 ff b1 d 80
[microtek] .mode_select_1 0...
MSL1: 16 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
[microtek] .save_mode_sense 0...
SMS: 8b 64 0 1 7 7 0 ff 80 7 7 0 ff 80 7 7 0 ff 80
[microtek] .wait_ready 0...
[microtek] .start_scan...
SS: 1b 0 0 0 41 0
[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi_cmd: command 0x1b failed.
[microtek] end_scan...
[microtek] .stop_scan...
SPS:1b 0 0 0 0 0
[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi_cmd: command 0x1b failed.
[microtek] end_scan: OY! on stop_scan
[sanei_scsi] OS/2: ASPI closed
scanimage: sane_start: Error during device I/O
[microtek] sane_cancel...
[microtek] end_scan...
[microtek] sane_close...
[microtek] sane_exit...
[microtek] sane_exit: MICROTEK says goodbye.
How/why is the "real" start-scan command declared a failure??
The log certainly doesn't show any evidence of a sense command;
is there a timeout involved? If so, for experimental purposes could we add
a way to relax or extend it via some commandline or SANE_DEBUG_xxx variable?
Of course, the timeout theory doesn't seem to explain why the much-older
model II-G works - within its limitations.
Even though I have a II-G, I'd much prefer to get the E3 working, (even for
black&white), because the II-G rejects attempts to alter either brightness or
gamma.
Thanks,
Irv Thomae
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com