xv should also be able to show the *.pnm files (usually xscanimage
creates *.pnm-files). You get at least the information of the image size
in pixels. Then you can calculate how many pixels you need to scan a
letter-size page at 300 dpi and compare these values.
Timothy Reaves wrote:
> By worse I mean that the 300 dpi scans under linux look like a fax;
> very pixelated. They do not apear this way under NT. As to whether I'm
> comparing the same setup, I'm as sure as I can be. I'm using XScanImage &
> XSane, and it is set to 300 dpi. I open the file scanned under NT with
> ACDSee and it says it is a 300 dpi image. I can not open the .prn files in
> anything under linux except GIMP, and I have not figured out how to have it
> show me the file information.
> If there is a better way of insuring that sane is scanning at the
> highest quality possible, please let me know!
> Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Timothy Reaves wrote:
> > > ...but could someone explain to me why on my HP 3C, 300 dpi scans come
> > > out much worse under xsanimage or xsane then they do with the software
> > > that came with my scanner under Windows NT?
> > Hmm. Could you define 'worse'? And are you 1000% convinced both systems
> > use the same resolution? Both optic and logical?
> > Hugo.
> Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
> To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail firstname.lastname@example.org
-- Peter Kirchgessner WWW: http://www.kirchgessner.net e-mail: email@example.com
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail firstname.lastname@example.org