On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:41 AM, stef <stef.dev at free.fr> wrote: > Le Thursday 13 January 2011 00:37:52 Heinz Wiesinger, vous avez ?crit : >> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 21:05:09 you wrote: >> > Le Wednesday 12 January 2011 08:41:55 Heinz Wiesinger, vous avez ?crit : >> > > On Wednesday 12 January 2011 06:52:35 stef wrote: >> > > > Le Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:21:35 Heinz Wiesinger, vous avez ?crit > : >> > > > > Hi! >> > > > > >> > > > > I got myself a Canon LiDE 210 today and immediatly tried it with >> > > > > latest git (922a22e). It was detected fine and it seems to work >> > > > > pretty good as well. >> > > > > >> > > > > Preview works fine, but I noticed that after the actual scanning >> > > > > run, when the scanhead is parked again, it tries to go back too >> > > > > far. It does not happen after the preview run, only after the >> > > > > scan. >> > > > > >> > > > > If there is anything else I can provide to help get this bug fixed, >> > > > > don't hesitate to contact me :) >> > > > > >> > > > > Grs, >> > > > > Heinz >> > > > >> > > > ? ? ? ? Hello, >> > > > >> > > > ? ? ? ? when you wait for the scanning head to park before each scans >> > > > no >> > > > ? ? ? ? mare >> > > > >> > > > motor noise), do you have the same issue ? >> > > >> > > Interesting, I thought I had tested that case as well, but apparently I >> > > didn't. >> > > It's true, if I wait between each scan nothing happens, the head is >> > > parked correctly. If I do not wait, or specify multiple scans from the >> > > beginning, it has issues. >> > > >> > > Grs, >> > > Heinz >> > >> > ? ? OK, >> > >> > ? ? thanks for the tests. I have just pushed a fixed for this bug to the >> > git >> > >> > source tree. >> >> Thank you very much. Confirmed working now here as well :) >> >> > ? ? BTW, do you have a windows environment where you can run your LiDE 210? >> > >> > Does the windows proposes a 2400 dpi resolution ? In this case I'd be >> > much interested by a log recorded with >> > http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/UsbSnoop/ of a very small area scanned >> > at 2400 dpi. >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure. The list only offered up to 1200 dpi, but it was >> editable. So I tried defining 2400 dpi and from what I can see it worked. >> At least gimp reports the scanned image with 2400 dpi. I did the same for >> 4800 dpi as well, don't know if it is useful or not. >> >> I tried to get as small as possible scans, maybe it ended up too small. If >> so tell me and I'll run it again. I uploaded the logs to my server, they >> are available here: http://www.liwjatan.at/files/logs/ >> >> Hope that helps! :) >> >> Grs, >> Heinz > ? ? ? ?Hello, > > ? ? ? ?thanks for the logs. I see no 2400 or 4800 resolution in it. However I > managed to get 2400 dpi work for LiDE 110 and 210. I've just pushed it in the > git source tree. > > Regards, > ? ? ? ?Stef
Hi, According to Canon's webpage, the LiDE210 does have 4800x4800 optical resolution: http://www.canon.com.au/en-au/For-You/Faxes-Scanners/CanoScan-Scanners/LiDE210 http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Scanners/Flatbed/canoscan_lide_210/ http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/scanners/photo_scanners/canoscan_lide210#Specifications (The LiDE110 only has 2400dpi.) Best regards, Gernot
