Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: > Hello, > > I modified lines 4596 and 4712 and reenable SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP flag. > Result can be found on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/19_test1.tar
Okay, results look good so far: [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: first set: 191/683,191/482,191/76 but there must be a little bug in the code: [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: second set: 0/-1080773208,8/-1212144018,-1080773236/134721688 this very much looks like the variables for the second set are getting overwritten/not initialized. Please try to find the problem(misplaced brackets perhaps? copy+pasto when calculating the second set?), or send the source. Regards, Pierre > Regards > Guillaume > > Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit : >> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >>> Hello, >>> >>> OK, I'll try this tonight. What is the best : WITH or WITHOUT >>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP ? >> Not using SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP is a bit counter productive when trying >> to get black levels on a white-only calibration area. >> >> Regards, >> Pierre >> >>> Regards >>> Guillaume >>> >>> Selon Pierre Willenbrock <pierre at pirsoft.dnsalias.org>: >>> >>>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I made two tests today : >>>>> >>>>> test 1 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITH flag : >>>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>>>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test1.tar >>>>> >>>>> test 2 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITHOUT flag : >>>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>>>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test2.tar >>>>> >>>> Not what i expected, although the debug images are looking good. >>>> >>>> Please try to change the first pixel used for minimum calculation to 200 >>>> at about lines 4596 and 4712: >>>> - for (i = 0; i < num_pixels; i++) >>>> + for (i = 150; i < num_pixels; i++) >>>> { >>>> if (dev->model->is_cis) >>>> val = >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Pierre >>>> >>> >> >> >
