Hi again, sorry, I did not realize that there is a difference between current CVS and experimental.
These are my results with the current experimental code: Lineart: 75: ok 150: ok 300: ok 600: ok 1200: ok 2400: ok gray/8bit: 75: ok 150: ok 300: ok 600: ok 1200: ok 2400: Error during read: error during device I/O. I can avoid this by enforcing backtracking through system load (e.g. by task switching) gray/16bit: 75: ok 150: ok 300: ok 600: backtracking. horizontal lines 1200: backtracking. Error during read: error during device I/O 2400: backtracking. horizontal lines - picture is unusable color/8bit: Segmentation fault at any resolution color/16bit: 600: Failed to start scanner: invalid argument other resolutions: segmentation fault Best, Cz. On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:52:56 +0100, Henning Meier-Geinitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:19:36PM +0100, Reinhard Mayr aka Czerwinski > wrote: >> I did some tests with the LiDE 60 and the current CVS backend >> (20051204-14:10). These are my results: > > Use the backend from experimental CVS. As mentioned in my success > report, that one works much better, at least for me. > >> Gray/16 bit >> 75: ok >> 150: ok >> 300: ok >> 600: stepping forth & back, horizontal lines >> 1200: stepping forth & back, horizontal lines, freezes after 2.5 cm >> 2400: stepping forth & back, horizontal lines > > The backtracking seems to be normal, at least it happens here also. > Looks like the scanner delivers data faster than either its USB part > or the computer can handle. > > Bye, > Henning > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
