The apps I've been using to examine the scans I've made so far are
ImageMagick's "display" and "gimp" Both of these-- which I've used
countless times over many years-- always worked fine in the past. But
for some reason, the images scanned at 1200 dpi looked horrible when
displayed by either of them (reduced visually to 3 or 4% of the original).
So I looked at the attachment uploaded to the hplip site, and a couple
other of the images I scanned, using Firefox and-- happy surprise-- they
looked fine: There was no distortion, no bands of discoloration, and the
images were clear and focused... completely unlike what either "display"
or "gimp" rendered for me.
I don't recall ever having any problems using "gimp" or "display" to
look at jpg images before, even files well over 100M. With my previous
Linux PC and scanner I did 4800x4800 scans-- I could see individual
fibers in the paper-- and didn't have any problems then. So it looks
like I need to investigate what's going on with "display" and "gimp".
But that's of no concern to this list. So we can count this issue Closed.
On 01/28/2015 02:09 PM, Carsten Jensen wrote:
the circles with the dot in the middle that you're refering to in one of
your initial email
are the result of the print, an algorithm to adjust the brightness of
colours, and make the print cheap.
you can see them if you use a magnifying glass.
you see them now because of the high resolution and you can zoom in.
I must agree with Allan, I don't see anything wrong with the images either.
Carsten
On 28-01-2015 19:58, m. allan noah wrote:
I just looked at the top couple inches of both images in your
launchpad bug report, and I dont see anything wrong with the files.
allan
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:53 PM, ken <geb...@mousecar.com> wrote:
I already opened up a bug report on this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hplip/+bug/1415121, if anyone's interested.
On 01/28/2015 01:44 PM, ken wrote:
What I wrote already in the prior email makes it clear this is a 1200dpi
scanner.
"4 pixels per dot" would correspond to 3 colors + a B/W bit for each
dot-- what would be required for color scanning at 1200dpi. "Pixel" is
a rather slippery term. Perhaps the tech should have said "sensel". But
this was tier-one tech support after all, not a developer I was talking
with. And she had to look up that much.
On 01/28/2015 10:33 AM, m. allan noah wrote:
"4 pixels per dot" is a meaningless statement. A dot is a pixel. You
would have to ask the hplip guys if they can get 1200 dpi out of this
scanner.
allan
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, ken <geb...@mousecar.com> wrote:
On 01/28/2015 07:23 AM, m. allan noah wrote:
at least in lineart mode, the scanner maximum is 300dpi. Try scanimage
--mode=color --help
allan
According to specifications published by HP, this scanner's hardware and
optical resolution is 1200x1200 dpi. I just called HP tech support to
confirm this and was told this is correct and that, further, there
are "4
pixels per dot", meaning that the scanner handles both color and B/W
at that
resolution. So I don't know why scanimage would report that 300dpi
is the
maximum resolution.
--
sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel
Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password"
to sane-devel-requ...@lists.alioth.debian.org
