>Using lower bitdepth may still be faster than higher ones. So even if >the size of the resulting image file is the same, lower depth may be >useful if your scanner is faster with the lower depth.
True, though that's not the case here. (AFAIK, I've not time()ed the scans, though I probably will soon.) Does anyone know of an instance where a scanner is noticibly slower on an 8-bit scan v. a 4-bit scan? >> Does anyone know of a SCSI sniffer for W2k available for free/student >> prices? a tcpdump equivalent would be ideal. > >I haven't looked at the w2k SCSI architecture. In the win95 days I >used to use the ASPI wrapper dll but I don't know if ASPi is used >nowadays. > >http://www.meier-geinitz.de/sane/misc/develop.html Thanks, I'll go the W95 route with aspispy if I can't get the Patin-Couffin driver to log. I've already struc out with about everything else. -Greg BTW, pedantically speaking, shouldn't: *dst-- = (*src << 4) & 0xf0; *dst-- = (*src--) & 0xf0; read as: *dst-- = ((*src << 4) & 0xf0) + 0x07; *dst-- = ((*src--) & 0xf0) + 0x07; The intensity drop from the zeroed bits is not great, but it is easy to notice when flipping between 4/8 bit scans of the same thing. If you agree, this might deserve a note in the backend development docs.
