Converting a 300MB image back to a packed 12bit image is a real pain,
especially if you have several. I don't agree that software that loses
data is broken, it is generally making a compromise to save on memory.
Frankly promoting all my images to 32 bit when I don't need to is
not an attractive proposition.
> If this level of accuracy (probably beyond human vision) is required
> for your application, you should suspect a lot of other components
> (optical problems at capture stage, development process, scanner
> hardware, ADC) before SANE.
Who said anything about human vision, I distinctly talked about processing
of images for quantitative results. If you think 12bit data is beyond
human vision you are simply wrong.
> The feature you describe (an additional toggle setting for stretch vs
> truncate) seems excessive even for Advanced options, where it will
> probably confuse users in a less technical environment. I don't think
> we want the advanced setting to mean "Deep magic for image processing
Throw hands up in air, so SANE is not for use by image processing people
-- Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail email@example.com