On Monday 26 July 2010 16:10:52 Gerhard Jaeger wrote:
> On Monday 26 July 2010 15:58:10 Stefan Champailler wrote:
> > > > Maybe Gerhard knows something about this. In the end, it may just
> > > > vibrations due to different motor settings between SANE and the
> > > > Windows driver.
> > >
> > > your guess is right. While playing with different settings, the
> > > grinding noise was my partner - and as you now observe sometimes this
> > > ghost comes back :(
> > > To solve this problem you might try to play with the settings in
> > > plustek-usbdevs.c line 2044/2045. Try to reduce the dMaxMotorSpeed and
> > > dMaxMoveSpeed until the noise dissapears. It's been a long time since I
> > > tweaked these settings, so I can't tell you wich one to tweak. But
> > > always change only one setting at a time.
> >
> > Cool, I'll look at it... However, before I start playing, could you tell
> > me what kind of increment I may try ? According to this :
> >
> > 0.86, /* dMaxMotorSpeed */
> > 0.243, /* dMaxMoveSpeed */
> >
> > I think a safe guess is to have increments of 0.02 for the max motor
> > speed and 0.05 for the move speed, but that's complete guess. Do you
> > remember the kind of increments I may use ? By any chance do you also
> > remember the units of those values, what they represent physically ? I
> > ask because I don't know if there's a risk of breaking the hardware with
> > bad values... (I once broke a CRT monitor by programming a bad refresh
> > speed :-()
>
> well there where indeed some problems on the EPSON 1260, where I
> blow a fuse with the wrong settings, but I never had problems with
> Canon devices. 0.05 should be okay. Regarding the units, I'm
> not sure could be inches per second... you might check the formulas
> in doc/plustek/Plustek-USB.txt but in the code there are several
> corner cases and in the end the trial-and-error approach will be
> the fastest here ;)
Looks like these work :
static HWDef Hw0x04A9_0x2206 =
{
0.76, /* 0.86 dMaxMotorSpeed */
0.243, /* 0.243 dMaxMoveSpeed */
I've just tested with scanimage defaults (they work making the noise
before)...
Now I'm pretty surprised... Why on earth would Linux use different settings
than on windows (assuming it's just a question of settings...). Has anyone
already looked into that ? I've seen complaints here and there about this
scanner so I guess the problem is not entirely fixed. Moreover, I still wonder
why it was so easy to fix it...
Maybe I could do some more testing, just to be sure ? Is scanimage a proper
program to do that (I assume that programs like XSane are << just >> nicer
scanimage, are they ?)
stF
stF
>
> Keep me posted and good luck
> Gerhard
>
> > Anyway, thanks for answering so fast. I'm on holidays right now so I may
> > have some spare energy/time to dig into this.
> >
> > stF
>
--
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
