On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Gerard Klaver <gerard.klaver at xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 01:29 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote: >> Dear all, >> I have been involved in trying to support the Canoscan 9000F, and the >> testing community has grown to about 15 individuals. A few of them >> have programming knowledge and tonight one individual send in >> corrected code to handle the final hurdle: correctly aligning the >> sub-images in the 9600dpi TPU mode. So the scanner is now supported >> for all modes. >> >> However, for large images at both 4800dpi and 9600dpi modes, it seems >> the max size of the image is limited in some way, so that only a >> section of the desired image is delivered. Is this something that can >> be set in the individual driver files (like pixma_mp150.c) or in some >> of the generic pixma driver .c or .h files (which I do not want to >> touch if possible)? I don't see a problem in the linesize or >> dimensions, only in the image_size value seen by [pixma] debugging >> output. >> >> Best regards, >> Gernot Hassenpflug >> >> -- >> sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel >> Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org > > One possible solution (if not yet done), is to check the declaration of > the ?image_size parameter, for a 9600 dpi A4 scan (color) size is about > 550 000 000 000 bytes. (long long is needed)
Hi, thank you for that. I see that image_size is currently declared as "unsigned". I imagine that changing the declaration will need to be checked in all places where the calculations using image_size are done, or not? Currently, from the report I obtain from a test user, a 4800x4800dpi image with dimensions: 32824 px (width) * 47248 px (height) should have a image_size of 4652605056 bytes (W*H*3 for channel number) whereas the actual image_size used is 357637760 bytes (approximately 341.1 MiB). I am still trying to ascertain whether for some reason the wrong calculation for image_size might have been made, but certainly the width and height are correctly there. Regards, Gernot
