-----Original Message-----
From: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of CDTobie@...
Sent: 10 October 2006 20:43
To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [colorvision_group] Re: Comparing patch readings
In a message dated 10/7/06 10:52:21 AM, bwinkjet@yahoo.com writes:
Appreciate your efforts. Where might I download this. I was hoping
ColorVision might include something like this in their software.
We certainly would consider it; but it requires reading everything twice. Generally, reading it carefully once is a quicker, more effective solution. How is it that some people make so many reading mistakes? I have to be carrying on a pretty distracting conversation at the same time I'm measuring to get any errors at all...
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@colorvision.com
www.colorvision.com
Message
RE: [colorvision_group] Re: Comparing patch readings
2006-10-10 by Mike Johnson
Firstly, average is included in the software, that also means
reading each patch twice.
;
I
think compare is more important than average. If you have no errors then you
don't need to average. If you have errors then its better to re-read those
patches and fix the errors than to average the errors into the good
data.
If you don't know the drying time, then re-reading after a few hours and
comparing can show how much of change there is. Also if you need to check if the
there is some change due to the printer, ink or paper changing, then compare is
useful.
I
always find a few patches that have a bigger error than the majority, I don't
know why. I find I have to concentrate to get the reader in the patch, so I
usually know if a moved it to soon or it did not read the patch. No chance of a
conversation. I have white marks on the tip to help and a small light at a
shallow angle. I don't know if other tasks in Windows could be causing the
error. What do you consider to be an acceptable difference ?
It would be nice to just read all the patches just once, but I find it
impossible to spot errors from the coloured patches on screen, and so far I
can't see a way to check just one set of readings for an
error.
Anyway, the end results seem good, better than my previous
profiles.
Mike
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.