Le vendredi 31 d?cembre 2010 ? 02:55 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug a ?crit : > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Robert Krawitz <rlk at alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:41:10 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Gerard Klaver <gerard.klaver at > >> xs4all.nl> wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 01:29 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> I have been involved in trying to support the Canoscan 9000F, and the > >>>> testing community has grown to about 15 individuals. A few of them > >>>> have programming knowledge and tonight one individual send in > >>>> corrected code to handle the final hurdle: correctly aligning the > >>>> sub-images in the 9600dpi TPU mode. So the scanner is now supported > >>>> for all modes. > >>>> > >>>> However, for large images at both 4800dpi and 9600dpi modes, it seems > >>>> the max size of the image is limited in some way, so that only a > >>>> section of the desired image is delivered. Is this something that can > >>>> be set in the individual driver files (like pixma_mp150.c) or in some > >>>> of the generic pixma driver .c or .h files (which I do not want to > >>>> touch if possible)? I don't see a problem in the linesize or > >>>> dimensions, only in the image_size value seen by [pixma] debugging > >>>> output. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Gernot Hassenpflug > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org > >>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel > >>>> Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" > >>>> to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org > >>> > >>> One possible solution (if not yet done), is to check the declaration of > >>> the image_size parameter, for a 9600 dpi A4 scan (color) size is about > >>> 550 000 000 000 bytes. (long long is needed) > >> > >> Hi, thank you for that. I see that image_size is currently declared as > >> "unsigned". I imagine that changing the declaration will need to be > >> checked in all places where the calculations using image_size are > >> done, or not? > >> > >> Currently, from the report I obtain from a test user, a 4800x4800dpi image > >> with > >> > >> dimensions: 32824 px (width) * 47248 px (height) > >> > >> should have a image_size of 4652605056 bytes (W*H*3 for channel number) > >> > >> whereas the actual image_size used is 357637760 bytes (approximately > >> 341.1 MiB). I am still trying to ascertain whether for some reason the > >> wrong calculation for image_size might have been made, but certainly > >> the width and height are correctly there. > > > > 32824 * 47248 * 3 - 357637760 = 4294967296 > > > > which is exactly 2^32. So that suggests exactly the problem described > > above. > > Ah! I suspected it was that, but forgot I had to take the difference > to get this number. Fantastic! Well, that sounds like somewhat of a > issue then for the SANE Canon maintainer to comment on. I guess this > issue had to come up eventually.
Should be possible to extend the image size in pixma backend by declaring uint64_t instead of unsigned the following variables: image_byte_read (in pixma.c), image_size (in pixma.h) cur_image_size (in pixma_common.h) Debug statements should also to be adjusted, %llu instead of %u in the different format strings, although this gives a compilation warning anyway, as the gcc compile statement uses the -pedantic flag. Unless someone has a better solution for sprintf 64 bits integers ? Anyway, could you give a try on 9000F with those changes ? Nicolas
