Hi,

I am trying to stop my Canon lide 30 which is recognised as a plustek canon 
scanner from invoking it's course calibration so it performs a scan without 
checking the bicolour strip everytime from shell using frontend scanimage.

I have used the -A option and see a few parameters I can set from shell but I 
have found that I can only do this via a change to the plustek configuration 
file, option:

option skipCalibration = 1  (installed default 0)

Then from shell if I want a calibration I specify --calibrate for a fine 
calibration (I think).

1. I need root access to change the plustek configuration file.  Is there a way 
to pass this option from shell?  I am using the default scanimage frontend.  
Perhaps another frontend? I'm a total newbie here.

2. Also when I change this option, it'll do a scan at 300dpi fine but at 50dpi 
makes some strange noises and the motor does not move the head forward.  It 
seems more like a position issue as it trys to move the head back a few mm 
before scanning when option set to disable calibration.  Default settings, it 
scans at 50dpi fine as the head seems to start a slightly different position.

3. What are the side affects of not calibrating since I tried it a few times 
and the images look crisp and clear?

4. I have used the calibration-cache command.  Turning it on and adding the 
calibrate switch for first scan and then missing the calibration switch off, 
obviously with the configuration file changes mentioned above.  To my 
understanding, it does the scan with calibration because of switch and then all 
other scans while scanner powered and configured will be using a cached version 
of the calibration data?  I just want to confirm my understand is correct or am 
I wasting my time here and should not bother with any calibration since all 
other scans will use some default data?

Regards,

g
                                          
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20130729/ca64b39b/attachment.html>

Reply via email to