Re: [hpoj-devel] more PML gray/color scanning support

[Joe P. <joe...@sn...>]

On Monday 30 April 2001 07:43 pm, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> Joe Piolunek wrote:
> > Scanning in color worked on the 600, but with some problems:
>
> Hi, Joe.  Thanks for the report.
>
> > The document printed at a smaller size than the original ( at
> > about 60% of
> > the scanned doc).
>
> I changed the default scanning resolution back to 100 for all models, so
> perhaps 100 is too small if you're trying to do a copy.  You can try
> experimenting with different resolutions, but this device may only support
> specific resolutions, such as 100, 150, and 300.  Try running "ptal-hp
> mlc:par:0 scan -help" and it will tell you what the device claims to
> support.
>

> Also, regarding the "60% reduction" issue above, perhaps your image viewer
> is scaling the image (including the trailer) down to make it all fit on one
> page.  In addition to experimenting with different scanning resolutions,
> you could try pasting the desired portion of the image into image and
> saving it as a different file, or even as a different file type (i.e.
> .pnm), which hopefully would eliminate the bad image height marker.

I probably wasn't clear enough. The size reduction is about 40%. That's when 
the scanned 'out.jpg' is sent straight to lpr without any other image 
processing such as might be done with gimp.

Apparently something automatically scales down the size of the scanned doc if 
it won't all print on one page. When I used gimp to crop to the white area 
(eliminating only the gray bottom), the page printed at nearly (@90%) the
original size.
 
On the 600, "ptal-hp mlc:par:0 scan -help" displays the available resolutions 
as: 100x100, 150x150, 200x200, 300x300.

>
> > The pixie image tool complained about a "premature end of
> > data segment" in
> > the out.jpg file, then crashed. gimp 1.2.1 also complained.
> > It did open the
> > file, but didn't handle it well.
>
> In what way did gimp not handle it well?

I think now that the problems resulted from not having enough ram for the 
size of the image and/or the gimp settings used. The page had been scanned at 
high resolution (-res 300). When I tried it again at -res 100 and -res 150, 
gimp had no problem with the images.

-- 
Joe