Brian Craft wrote:
> Yeah, that's not the issue. Supporting postscript is no big deal. You send
> it to ghostscript and select the g3 backend. For text, word processing
> documents, figures, and anything else that is being rasterized, this works
> great. The quality is fine.
> For a scanned image (i.e. something that's already a raster) it's sorta
> almost identifiable if you hold it 3 feet away and squint. The resolution
> gets munged. So outputting postscript in XSane eliminates its usefulness as
> a fax solution.
I just did some tests:
scanning an image as lineart and saving it as pbm and as postscript via xsane fax option.
Afterwards I convertedt the postscript file with the following command to a pbm file:
gs -sDEVICE=pbmraw -r98 -q -dSAFER -dNOPAUSE -sOutputFile=xxx.pbm testfa
There has been no visible difference between both outputs.
GNU Ghostscript 5.10 (1998-12-17)
Copyright (C) 1997 Aladdin Enterprises, Menlo Park, CA. All rights reserved.
So it look like ghostscript does not make any problems converting the created postscript files.
May be the fax programs have problems setting the correct options for ghostscript - if they use
So I see no reason to change anything in xsane.
-- Homepage: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch sane-umax: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-umax.html xsane: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-xsane.html E-Mail: mailto:Oliver.Rauch@Wolfsburg.DE
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 16:08:37 PDT