> Hm. I don`t think that this is correct:
> With 1000 dpi in the test backend I get an image with 7874*7874 pixels.
> With 16 bits/pixel this is a size of 354MB. Xsane does store the
> original image (with full depth) and the enhanced image with 8 bits/sample
> what makes additional 177MB in this c
>
> But that's not the only problem. Memory consumption is very big. I can
> scan with the test backend with 1000 dpi without problems. But when I
> set the minimum resolution to 1000 dpi in test.conf, xsane needs 538 MB
> of memory when doing the preview. The image itsself is "only" 35 MB in
> si
Henning,
> Maybe the backend should provide a smaller resolution and so do the
> down-sampling itsself. E.g. It could use 100 dpi for preview mode.
> This also makes network-scanning much faster.
Good idea, will probably go into coolscan2 with SANE 1.0.9...
Andras
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:40:54PM +0100, Major A wrote:
> Hi, I'm trying to use xsane 0.86 with a Nikon LS-8000ED, which is a
> medium-format scanner with a minimum practical preview resolution of
> 1000dpi. This generates huge previews whatever I do.
Maybe the backend should provide a small
Hi, I'm trying to use xsane 0.86 with a Nikon LS-8000ED, which is a
medium-format scanner with a minimum practical preview resolution of
1000dpi. This generates huge previews whatever I do. Now the problem
seems to be that I use xsane over an ssh tunnel, and it is exceedingly
slow this way (1 line
