# Re: segfault with Microtek Scanmaker 330

Norman Uhlmann (unicorn@unicorn.franken.de)
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:09:48 -0100 (GMT+1)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Hugo van der Kooij: "Re: segfault with Microtek Scanmaker 330"
- Previous message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANEI_THREAD proposal"

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Bernd Schroeder wrote:

> Good to hear that a mode exists that works for you. However, the
> problem that the backend returns an error for bigger buffer sizes still
> exists.

No it doesn't :-))
sane-0.74
#define SG_BIG_BUFF 131072

and I am able to scan :-))
> > After that I got brave and compiled with
> > sg.h #define SG_BIG_BUFF 512000 but
> > it doesn't work :-((.
>
> To my knowledge the maximum value for SG_BIG_BUFF is 128KB - 0.5KB.

Okay that's the way I have to understand the SCSI-HOWTO :-)
+ generic header as well as the command block on input. SG_BIG_BUFF can
+ be safely increased upto (131072 - 512).
though it is 512000bytes :-)

Okay, but in sane-0.74 there is no support for ScanMaker 330, but it
is no problem.
Here is the diff output, but I don't know how to build a patch with it.
Perhaps someone can do it for me :-?

    ---
    bash$ diff microtek2.c.old microtek2.c
    1638a1639,1641
    >       case 0x93 :
    >           *model_string = "ScanMaker 330";
    >           break;
    1794a1798
    >       case 0x93: fprintf(stderr, "ScanMaker 330"); break;

    ---
    With it it works ok.

    Further question.

    My scanner seems to scan some centimeters and the goes back a little
    and scan further. Is it normal, I fear about the mechanic of
    the scanner. Especially with high resolutions and 24bit depth.

    Greetings Unicorn

     A unicorn slowly drifts downward to you
     speaks to you with the loveliest voice
     you have ever heard, and vanishes into nothing
     You feel happy!

    --
    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

     Next message: Hugo van der Kooij: "Re: segfault with Microtek Scanmaker 330"
     Previous message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANEI_THREAD proposal"