On Wednesday 14 November 2001 14:05, Martin JelÃnek wrote: > Martin JelÃnek, Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 02:58: > > I attach a attach.c source with parsed output at debug level 3, raw bytes > > moved to debug level 5. > > > > mates > >
It looks great! I will try it tonight. Now for the resolutions: Your "Maximum Scanning width" (81/82) is 9*256+248 = 2552 2552/300= 8.5 (in) *25.4 = 216 mm (Question at the end) Your "Maximum Scanning height" (83/84) is 16*256+104 = 4200 4200/300= 14 (in) *25.4 = 355.6 mm Using this formula for my scanner I get: My "Maximum Scanning width" (81/82) is 10*256+128 = 2668 2668/300= 8.96 (in) *25.4 = 227.6 mm (Not bad for a film scanner) My "Maximum Scanning height" (83/84) is 15*256+192 = 4032 4032/300= 13.44 (in) *25.4 = 341.4 mm If instead of dividing by 300 I divide by the optical resolution (multiply the result by a factor of 300/2820) I get: width=24.6 mm height=36.3 mm. These are the dimensions of a "normal" 35mm image. Anyway it seems that the only scanner that needs this correction is the film scanner. Regards Ze Paulo Question: The driver reports X-Range: 203.199997mm. My "computations" give 216 mm. What is wrong??? Is it SANE_FIX / SANE_UNFIX?
