Hello, So, what's the next step ? Re-enabling shading ?
Do you think that last modification "for (i = 150; i..." is necessary ? Is it time to fine tune registers 52... ? Regards Guillaume Pierre Willenbrock a ?crit : > Guillaume Gastebois schrieb: >> 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 >> > > Hi, > > i am sorry, i actually wanted 450, but didn't realize until just now. I > missed that the calibration dump images are really grayscale images, > although stored in color pnms. 1 pixel in image is 3 pixels for the > calibration... > > I hope this fixes that part of the calibration. > > Regards, > Pierre > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>> > > >
