Thanks, Olaf, for your very detailed & obviously competent remarks! I hope you & Michael Nagel & other experts will produce something positive out of all this, which, as a dumb user, is way over my head, of course.
On 17/04/12 01:48, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > Care to explain about those negatives? Sure (my negatives for Image Scan! for Linux): Philosophically, I prefer to only introduce stuff into Ubuntu via Synaptic Package Manager which does such an unbelievably good job of keeping things up to date & dealing with all the dependancies. Practically, having managed to download & install whatever is required from Avasys (Thank you/them very much for providing it!) it has always taken a lot of time & effort to get the scanner up & running after every upgrade of Image Scan & every upgrade of Ubuntu. I have numerous long threads on Ubuntu Forum with all the gory details... http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=797768 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=701178 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=627650 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=896503 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=892351 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1161947 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1643563 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1733708 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1060319 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1807093 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1576401 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1837151 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1648771 When Image Scan is working, then I still have the (minor but persistent) irritations mentioned in 1733708 above: There is no way of changing the default settings (300dpi - Color Photo - png - save to home - etc). I usually want: 150dpi - Color Document - jpg - save to desktop, so this means resetting all of them every time. Hard to believe. If just that could be changed... Even with those problems, I still use Image Scan more than other apps available to me in Ubuntu. >> This means I really only have 300/600/1200/2400/4800 as usable values. > Only if you insist on using the same resolution in *both* directions. > If you use different resolutions for the X and Y directions, you really > should make sure they are incorporated in the image's metadata. If you > don't, chances are you get weirdly elongated images in one direction. > Sorry, you lost me there. Obviously (OK - should never say that) if I scan a circle, I want to see a circle. That means, with XSane for instance, the only lowish dpi's which work for me are 300x300 & 600x600. Anything else gives me an ellipse. I don't know what to make of "make sure they are incorporated in the image's metadata"? And there are no X options between 75 & 300 anyway, which is where I would want to be for routine stuff. I don't care much how the scanner, the backend or the frontend decide to split the work, all I want is to be able to select a good compromise between image size & visible detail depending on the intended use. > >> 2. Can I do anything to get other values - preferably with same X& Y, >> particularly 75/100/150 ? > You're best bet is probably post-processing of the image with something > like `convert` for command-line based work (part of the imagemagick and > graphicsmagick packages) for example, or the GIMP if you prefer a GUI. That prospect could drive me back to Windows if Image Scan ever disappears. ;) I really, really understand why Ubuntu needs Simple Scan for ordinary users. But it also needs to work. I wish it well! Thanks again for the detailed explanations, Olaf, & thanks to all working to get Linux scanning up to speed, hopefully for ordinary users. 2CV67
