Hello,
I do the test again with :
0x71] = 0x05; /*RS signal seems to be not used.*/
0x72] = 0x07; /*CP signal seems to be not used.*/
0x73] = 0x09; /*CP signal seems to be not used.*/
0x75] = 0x01; /*clock 1 bitmap*/
0x76] = 0xff; /*clock 1 bitmap*/
0x79] = 0x3f; /*clock 3 bitmap*/
0x7c] = 0x1e; /*clock 4 bitmap*/
0x7d] = 0x11; /*change RS on falling edge of system clock, use DLY*/
0x7f] = 0x50; /*delay each of BSMP and VSMP by 8.33ns (DLY)*/
The result is on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/12_test1.tar
(and a second scan on :
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/12_test1b.tar)
Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit :
Hi,
Guillaume Gastebois schrieb:
Hello,
What about only setting register 0x7f? that one should do something
without needing to setup reg 0x1a.
Not better I think. Result :
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/10_test0.tar
I forgot that there is a switch-on-bit for that, too: bit0 of reg[0x7d].
Please try with that one set.
(And that tar seems to be truncated)
I didn't expect reg[0x1a]=0x24 to work without setting the corresponding
clock bit masks. What happens if you leave line 1159 commented and set
regs 0x74-0x7d(my guess: works without changes in behaviour)? Does
setting regs 0x71-0x73 change anything (line 1159 still commented)?
Result of setting only 0x75 0x76 0x79 0x7c 0x7d (not 0x7f) :
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/10_test1.tar
Result of setting 0x71 0x72 0x73 0x75 0x76 0x79 0x7c 0x7d (not 0x7f) :
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/10_test2.tar
The same as without setting them at all. So the bits in 0x1a are
probably switching from some internal bit masks to those in 0x71 to
0x7c. And changing the switching point of RS didn't change anything, either.
(I have only little understanding of the actual relative timing and use
of all clock signals going out to the ccd/afe, so i am guessing and
doing experiments.)
But this seems to be basically working. Please send your changes leading
to a usable scan, so i can integrate them.
For now, my code is ugly. I only modified lide60 to lide90. But you can
find genesys_gl841.c and genesys_devices.c in
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/sources
Will merge that.
Another thing : when I make several scan with sane backend and sane
command line, I have alternatively brite and dark images !!! Why ???
The calibration is probably giving widely differing results with
different starting conditions. It swings between two states. But you
shouldn't see this after the gl842 did its shading correction. Then, the
problem is probably overexposure of the ccd cells. Try reducing the
upper threshold in genesys_gl841.c:4383
if (avge 2000) {
expr = (expr * 2000) / avge;
expg = (expg * 2000) / avge;
expb = (expb * 2000) / avge;
Reducing the lower threshold may be needed, too. The current values for
your scanner are:
expr: 1235
expg: 1235
expb: 675
No guarantee that this helps at all.
I tryed that (upper threshold to 1500 and lower to 250 and it doesn't
work. You can find the same test as test2 without the same result on :
http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/10_test2b.tar (I just make two
consecutive scanimage without recompiling sane).
That is not unexpected.
Any other idea ?
One other thing : we can see vertical lines with different contrast on
result images. What is it ?
The shading correction not doing its work correctly. I see similar
behavior when using the method of scanning a single line multiple times
with/without lights for acquisition of dark/bright levels. I don't see
this when using a scan over my black+white calibration area. Currently,
i don't know what causes this difference.
But there is not black area on lide 90 (except the small rectangle in
the middle (for glass fixing ?)). Shading must be possible with led off
!!! (but I'm not a specialist!!!)
Regards
Guillaume
Regards,
Pierre
Regards
Guillaume
