Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: > Hello, > > OK, I'll try this tonight. What is the best : WITH or WITHOUT > SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP ?
Not using SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP is a bit counter productive when trying to get black levels on a white-only calibration area. Regards, Pierre > > Regards > Guillaume > > Selon Pierre Willenbrock <pierre at pirsoft.dnsalias.org>: > >> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I made two tests today : >>> >>> test 1 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITH flag : >>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test1.tar >>> >>> test 2 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITHOUT flag : >>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test2.tar >>> >> Not what i expected, although the debug images are looking good. >> >> Please try to change the first pixel used for minimum calculation to 200 >> at about lines 4596 and 4712: >> - for (i = 0; i < num_pixels; i++) >> + for (i = 150; i < num_pixels; i++) >> { >> if (dev->model->is_cis) >> val = >> >> >> Regards, >> Pierre >> > > >
