[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
hangs the SCSI bus. On the other hand the vuescan does a good job with it (too bad it's not free and not open source). Hm, vuescan is reasonably priced, has a user interface, supports it8 targets, process calibration and reasonably good infrared cleaning, and most importantly, actually works... Most annoying that it doesn't work with SCSI scanners on 64bit machines, something a recompile would fix. Hence my recent question about write() encapsulation in sanei_scsi.c (which no-one replied to :( ). Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
Hi, On 2006-01-08 14:27, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: Most annoying that it doesn't work with SCSI scanners on 64bit machines, something a recompile would fix. Hence my recent question about write() encapsulation in sanei_scsi.c (which no-one replied to :( ). I didn't answer because I'm not really sure about SCSI and 64bit systems. As far as I know there is no special handling for 64bit systems in our SCSI code. If somebody else needs such a special handling because of the binary-only nature of his software, it's up to him to fix the problems caused by this. If there are general problems with sanei_scsi/SANE on 64 bit systems, I'd like to know about this. As far as I know, this is not the case, however. Bye, Henning
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote: of creating (or extending) the SANE back-end? See SANE website, section Contributing. See also the archive of this mailing list for similar questions about writing backends. OK, I'd like to try. Should I contact the manufacturer for protocol details or maybe someone has these already? With the best regards, Andrei.
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
Hi, On 2006-01-08 14:17, Andrei V. Toutoukine wrote: OK, I'd like to try. Should I contact the manufacturer for protocol details or maybe someone has these already? Asking is always a good idea. If they don't have a protocol description, maybe they can give you the source code of the windows driver. The PIE 1800 seems to be the same scanner: http://www.sane-project.org/unsupported/pie-1800u.html Bye, Henning
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote: Hi, On 2006-01-08 14:27, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: Most annoying that it doesn't work with SCSI scanners on 64bit machines, something a recompile would fix. Hence my recent question about write() encapsulation in sanei_scsi.c (which no-one replied to :( ). I didn't answer because I'm not really sure about SCSI and 64bit systems. As far as I know there is no special handling for 64bit systems in our SCSI code. If somebody else needs such a special handling because of the binary-only nature of his software, it's up to him to fix the problems caused by this. If there are general problems with sanei_scsi/SANE on 64 bit systems, I'd like to know about this. As far as I know, this is not the case, however. The problem is probably the same that has been discussed for Linux on 64 bit Sparc machines some time ago. The SG interface version 3 can't deal with 32 bit programs on a 64 bit kernel. In read/write calls of the SG driver, the application passes 32 bit pointers to three buffers (SCSI command, data buffer, sense data) to the SG driver, while the driver expects 64 bit pointers to these buffers. As a workaround, one can enforce the usage of the old interface, by inserting the line #define DISABLE_LINUX_SG_IO 1 at the start of sanei_scsi.c. OK, a proper solution would be to add a configure option, but I am not familiar enough with the details of autoconf to tell how to implement such an option. Abel
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
Dear SANE developers, I've got six years old Microtek Film Scan 35 which nobody cares of at my work. Unfortunately I seen the mark unsupported at SANE web site. Small remark made me confused [ http://www3.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html ] : FilmScan 35 USB unsupported Probably unsupported. See link for details unsupported (2005-12-18) ? - What does Probably unsupported mean? Both links gave no hope of course... If it means, that the scanner is somehow supported, could you explain how to make it working at my Linux box? If it means, that the scanner is not supported, I'd like to know how much man-hours it would take to create some basic support. I have some free time, good knowledge of C and Linux. Could anyone to outline the procedure of creating (or extending) the SANE back-end? sane-find-scanner says there is a device with vendor/model as expected. xscanimage pretends there's no available scanner however. With the warmest regards, Andrei.
[sane-devel] Microtek Film Scan 35
Hi, On 2006-01-07 19:48, Andrei V. Toutoukine wrote: What does Probably unsupported mean? Both links gave no hope of course... This means that someone told us that this scanner exists but there is no obvious backend that could support it. But no in-depth analysis was done, e.g. which chipset it uses and if it could be supported by an existing backend. When I get a report about a scanner which is not in our lists yet, I usually list it with the comment Probably unsupported. If it means, that the scanner is somehow supported, could you explain how to make it working at my Linux box? If we knew some way, it would be documented in the lists. If it means, that the scanner is not supported, I'd like to know how much man-hours it would take to create some basic support. I have some free time, good knowledge of C and Linux. Could anyone to outline the procedure of creating (or extending) the SANE back-end? See SANE website, section Contributing. See also the archive of this mailing list for similar questions about writing backends. Bye, Henning
