On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Steve Underwood wrote:
>
> If you still have the box your scanner came in, look at it. It says "Acer
> Vuego 310S", in big letters. There is only one model 310S, but somehow in the
> history of the snapscan driver it has been confused as being 2 fairly similar
> machines.
>
nope, it says "AcerScan Prisma 310S". i wasnt able to find "Vuego" written
anywhere on it. even the sticker on the side with the serial number and
all that says "Model Name: ACERSCAN Prisma 310". findscanner reports this,
which i believe is the same as the vuego based on what i've read in the
source:
# devel/sane-1.0.2/tools/find-scanner
find-scanner: found scanner "Color FlatbedScanner_4 0181" at device /dev/scanner
find-scanner: found scanner "Color FlatbedScanner_4 0181" at device /dev/sg3
find-scanner: found scanner "Color FlatbedScanner_4 0181" at device /dev/sgd
> The oddness of your scan is, in itself, odd. At first I thought something odd
> happens every 8192 bytes. That idea fits some of your pictures. It doesn't
> seem to fit out2.png, though. The dirty blue changes to dirty green over a
> substantial block of lines. That doesn't seem to fit the model of a simple
> hiccup in the data stream, even allowing for the chroma offsets, which the
> latest driver compensates for.
>
the scans were using xscanimage into pnm's and then converted into png
with xv if that matters. i just put all the raw pnm's online in a tar.gz
in case you (or anyone else) wants to see them.
> A couple of questions. What OS and version are you using? I tested the latest
> driver with a RedHat 6.2 installation. That has the recently updated generic
> SCSI driver, which may be a factor. At what resolution were these scans
> performed? It makes a difference when trying to allow for the chroma offset
> compensation analysing your weird results.
>
redhat 6.2. i tested this with sane-1.0.2 and both its stock snapscan
drivers and the updated ones. tried with kernel 2.2.15, 2.2.16, and
2.4.0-test1. i didnt go download a specifically updated sg driver, but i
can try tat too. i remember reading something about that on the list, but
i dont have the url handy. if you do, i'd appreciate it.
as for resolution, i think the first two color ones were 300 and 100 dpi,
the greyscale ones might have been 300, 100, 100 respectively, but i dont
remember for sure. if there's a particular set of tests that i should run,
just let me know.
> One thing worth trying - in snapscan.c you will find a bit that goes:
>
> if (pss->pdev->model == PRISA620S /* GP added - blocking mode only */
> ||
> pss->pdev->model == VUEGO610S) /* SJU added */
> {
> status = SANE_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED;
> }
> else if (pipe (pss->rpipe) != -1)
> {
>
> Change it to go:
>
> if (pss->pdev->model == PRISA620S
> ||
> pss->pdev->model == VUEGO310S
> ||
> pss->pdev->model == VUEGO610S)
> {
> status = SANE_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED;
> }
> else if (pipe (pss->rpipe) != -1)
> {
>
> and see what happens.
>
the results look the same to me, but i put a bunch online
anyway. http://www.cs.umn.edu/~wburdick/sane/ again, but these ones are
out6-11. all 6 are of the same area. 6+7 are 100dpi, 6greyscale, 7
color. 8+9 are 200dpi, 8grey, 9color. 10+11 are 300dpi, 10grey, 11color.
any other suggestions?
Russ
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Russ Burdick + grub@extrapolation.net + http://extrapolation.net/ "What do the good know...except what the bad teach them by their excesses?" - Clive Barker-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 22:22:58 PDT