# snapscan vs. acer 310S

From: Russ Burdick (grub@extrapolation.net)
Date: Sat Jun 10 2000 - 08:42:50 PDT

- Next message: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Previous message: Jochen Eisinger: "Re: New Interface sanei_pa4s2..."
  - Next in thread: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Steve Underwood: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Jouke Hylkema: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

  ok, i've finally got a bit of time to play with my scanner again and i've
  been doing some work with my Acer Prisma 310S and the latest snapscan
  backend (snapscan-20000514.tar.gz) and sane-1.0.2.

  from what i've gone through in the source it seem that this scanner has
  the same id (and supposedly behavior) as the VUEGO310S. this brings me to
  my first question for the list: is there anyone out there using a Vuego
  310S that has had success with any version of sane+snapscan? if the vuego
  works and the acer doesnt, perhaps they're not the same inside and it'd be
  worthwhile to start thinking about separating the two in the snapscan
  code.

  back when kevin was still taking care of snapscan and active on this list
  i had a few conversations with him about trying to get snapscan working
  correctly for the acer 310S. at present everything but the very begining
  of a scan is complete garbage, so he had me try doing small scans,
  specifically < 64K. you can see some example of the output here:

  http://www.cs.umn.edu/~wburdick/sane/

  the first two are color at different resolutions and the last three are
  greyscale. the final image is of a slightly different area on my test
  image since the top of the first one didnt seem all that interesting. this
  is the one i find most interesting. it looks like the first 'block' is
  clear, then the subsequent 'blocks' get more and more garbled. i should
  also note that the resulting pnms (produced by xscanimage) 'appeared to be
  truncated' according to xv, but the greyscale images were fine. i used xv
  to check the images out and to convert them to the above referenced
  pngs. i did all of the above after 'export SANE_DEUBUG_SNAPSCAN=128' and
  the resulting output is also at the above referenced url.

  i thought before jumping into the code too deep i'd see if anyone had any
  thoughts on what i'm seeing. is there something it's doing different on
  the scans after the first one that it shouldnt be? any comments welcome.

  Russ

      --
      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Russ Burdick + grub@extrapolation.net + http://extrapolation.net/
      "What do the good know...except what the bad teach them by their
       excesses?" - Clive Barker
      --
      Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
      To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

  - Next message: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Previous message: Jochen Eisinger: "Re: New Interface sanei_pa4s2..."
  - Next in thread: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Wolfgang Goeller: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Steve Underwood: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Reply: Jouke Hylkema: "Re: snapscan vs. acer 310S"
  - Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

  This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 08:44:54 PDT