Hi, On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:54:12PM +0100, Jonathan Buzzard wrote: > > I've asked multiple times for concrete proposals how the standard can > > be changed or appended. Each time there hasn't been any response. With > > "concrete proposals" I mean patches to SANE2 or at least the text of > > the to-be-added well-known options. > > > > If I remember correctly, we came to the conclusion that most proposed > > features can be done by adding well-known options (like multi-pass, > > selection of a specific range of images, auto/manual focus) and > > providing the functionality in the backend. So please send proposals. > > I did sit down and make a long list of things that I thought where missing > from the SANE API for negative scanning and posted it to this list.
I haven't forgotten that and it's appreciated. > I am not sufficiently familiar with the SANE API to be qualified to > make good proposals on how it should be extended, and it would take > significant amounts of my time that I don't have to do so. Well ok, I guess there are more people than you who use a film scanner :-) > > If none of the people who use film scanners provide the necessary > > changes, they won't be done. > > I honestly feel I have done my bit. My mail wasn't meant as am offense to you. It's more an explantion why these issues are not yet solved in SANE V2. > To then expect me to become sufficiently familiar with the API to make > good proposals of how to implement this features is in my opinion asking > to much. It is hard enough to propose good API's even when you understand > everything fully, but to skillfully extend an existing standard is > in my opinion best done by those intimately familiar with it. That's ok. I'm just saying that I'm not personally interested in film scanners so I won't write those sections myself. If nobody else does it, then nothing happens. > > I can't talk about that specific scanner, but with my Mustek BearPaw > > flatbed scanner I also get too much noise with dark slides or > > negatives. With those scanners I didn't have trouble to get good > > images from brighter negatives when using XSanes film selection option > > by the way. > > Good is clearly very subjective here. I messed around with scanning > negatives on various flatbeds. The results where never very satisfactory > which is why I have proper film scanner these days. I don't say it's as good as with film scanners. In fact I can't compare because I don't have one. But it's not worse than with the Windows driver and it's enough for me for printing slides /negatives with m ink jet or for putting the scans on the web. Bye, Henning
