Hello, I modified lines 4596 and 4712 and reenable SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP flag. Result can be found on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/19_test1.tar
Regards Guillaume Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit : > 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 >>> >> >> > > >