On Friday 27 July 2007 12:35:03 m. allan noah wrote: > On 7/27/07, Ren? Rebe <rene at exactcode.de> wrote: > > On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:14:16 Ren? Rebe wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Friday 29 June 2007 23:12:40 m. allan noah wrote: > > > > well, after letting this sit for a few weeks to see if i could think > > > > of a better way, i stumbled across the fact that the sane backend for > > > > bell and howell scanners already supports 3 additional frame types. > > > > they are used to send variants of G4 fax, and the text that comes from > > > > a hardware bar/patchcode reader. this code has been a part of sane for > > > > years, and it has not hurt anyone. > > > > > > > > therefor, i am moving ahead with adding other frame-type support to > > > > the mainline fujitsu backend. i will put the additional frametype > > > > defines in sane.h, unless there are valid objections. i may also move > > > > the ones that are in bh, too, so that the list remains unique. > > > > > > Oh nice! Thanks for digging up this prior art, did not saw this yet > > > either. > > > > I just notice scanadf includes the same custom-copy of "non-basic" > > FRAME types: > > > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #ifndef sane_isbasicframe > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define SANE_FRAME_TEXT 10 > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define SANE_FRAME_JPEG 11 > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define SANE_FRAME_G31D 12 > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define SANE_FRAME_G32D 13 > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define SANE_FRAME_G42D 14 > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define sane_strframe(f) ( (f) == > > SANE_FRAME_GRAY ? "gray" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_RGB ? "RGB" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_RED ? "red" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_GREEN ? "green" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_BLUE ? "blue" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_TEXT ? "text" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_JPEG ? "jpeg" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_G31D ? "g31d" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_G32D ? "g32d" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_G42D ? "g42d" : \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): "unknown" ) > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #define sane_isbasicframe(f) ( (f) == > > SANE_FRAME_GRAY || \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_RGB || \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_RED || \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_GREEN || \ > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): (f) == SANE_FRAME_BLUE ) > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): > > 1.1 (tommarto 12-Jan-02): #endif > > > > Unbelievable this was not added cleanly to SANE back in 2002. > > actually, not unbelievable at all. i guess tom did not want to start a fight > :)
Probably he was not trained from linux-kernel :-) > > We certainly want to change the bh backend and scanadf to use the > > SANE FRAME_JPEG, these days. > > yes- i intend to do this in a month or so (very busy ATM), but i > hesitate to change bh backend, since it's not mine :) Well - the only problem is that since the now official FRAME_JPEG has another enum value a new bh backend would pass the JPEG data with another FRAME value, so the modified bh backend would only function correctly with an equally updated scanadf. This non-mainstream FRAME tinkering from 4 years ago is a little problematic today. Yours, -- Ren? Rebe - ExactCODE GmbH - Europe, Germany, Berlin http://exactcode.de | http://t2-project.org | http://rene.rebe.name
