Sorry for the late reaction, but: On Monday 01 December 2003 15:29, Major A wrote: > > I think that IR cleaning is a front end task personally. For starters > > you can tweek the IR cleaning parameters after the image has been > > scanned if you are not happy with the default ones, without having > > to scan the image again. > > Agreed. I think there should be a sanei_* library that allows the code > to be used in frontends or meta-backends, whichever solution is > best. (Just think of a network scanner that is accessed by a handheld > device -- you don't want the IR cleaning to be done on the handheld.)
I recall that someone suggested that there should be something like a "mid-end" (like saned) that does the correction. This would keep front-ends simple and provide a moer uniform way to access features like IR-correction. > > > Which is why IR cleaning should be a front end operation, with a set of > > default parameters for the most common scenario. I note that Vuescan > > only provides light, medium and heavy options in the front end for > > this. Clearly there is not a lot of need to twiddle parameters. I do not agree that there is little need for correction. When I try to correct using the simple GIMP-plugin, I find that both brightness and contrast of the IR-chanel are critcal and they must be set for each image separately. Also, the exposure for the IR-chanel seems important. <...> Another reason why a mid-end could be better than the front-end is, that the mid-end can scan always at full bit-resolution (12 bits on my LS-2000), do the calculations and then round to 8 bits. hm... maybe it's time for me to pick-up programming again... ljm -- (c) ljm ( xs4all) No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author.
