On Monday, October 5, 2015, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Yes, and I think the OP said that he did that.
But what that does is allow for variation in the performance of the measurement device. What I (not Jeff) said was "I'm less concerned about variability in the performance of the measurement device than I am about the consistency of the printer in laying down the ink, and also possible variation in the paper coating." For this kind of thing, where you're going to be creating .quad files that you'll using to print over and over again, I would always average three or four sets of patches rather than read the same set three or four times. Wouldn't you?Sure, better with other patches. But on separate reads you probably measuredifferent areas of patch, too. All good ideas.
Roy
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, wrote :Btw, even with just one set of patches you can read it 4 times and average the results.Roy
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile