Hello, Yep, I write "for (j = 150; j...." instead of "for (i = 150; i....." Now second set seems good. Result is on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/20_test1.tar
Regards Guillaume Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit : > Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >> Hello, >> >> I modified lines 4596 and 4712 and reenable SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP flag. >> Result can be found on : http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/19_test1.tar > > Okay, results look good so far: > [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: first set: 191/683,191/482,191/76 > > but there must be a little bug in the code: > [genesys_gl841] gl841_offset_calibration: second set: > 0/-1080773208,8/-1212144018,-1080773236/134721688 > > this very much looks like the variables for the second set are getting > overwritten/not initialized. Please try to find the problem(misplaced > brackets perhaps? copy+pasto when calculating the second set?), or send > the source. > > Regards, > Pierre > >> Regards >> Guillaume >> >> Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit : >>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> OK, I'll try this tonight. What is the best : WITH or WITHOUT >>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP ? >>> Not using SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP is a bit counter productive when trying >>> to get black levels on a white-only calibration area. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pierre >>> >>>> Regards >>>> Guillaume >>>> >>>> Selon Pierre Willenbrock <pierre at pirsoft.dnsalias.org>: >>>> >>>>> Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made two tests today : >>>>>> >>>>>> test 1 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITH flag : >>>>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>>>>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test1.tar >>>>>> >>>>>> test 2 : too bright/too dard = 10/65525 WITHOUT flag : >>>>>> SCAN_FLAG_DISABLE_LAMP. Result can bee found on : >>>>>> http://ggastebois.free.fr/lide90_snoop/18_test2.tar >>>>>> >>>>> Not what i expected, although the debug images are looking good. >>>>> >>>>> Please try to change the first pixel used for minimum calculation to 200 >>>>> at about lines 4596 and 4712: >>>>> - for (i = 0; i < num_pixels; i++) >>>>> + for (i = 150; i < num_pixels; i++) >>>>> { >>>>> if (dev->model->is_cis) >>>>> val = >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Pierre >>>>> >>> > > >
