[argyllcms] Re: DTP20 (Pulse) patch size error

  

I'm having the same problems on a Mac. 

I'm seeing the same patch
sizes as Philip. Last weekend I managed to get a chart measured, but I
got a lot of 'Invalid strip patch size' errors in the process. I almost
gave up. I will try to create some new charts with updated
border/scaling settings and see if that helps. 

Hal, if you do remember
the settings you used in the past, please post them here. 

Johan 

On
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:54:23 -0700, Hal V. Engel wrote: 

> On Monday,
August 15, 2011 02:44:18 AM Graeme Gill wrote: 
> 
>> Philip Reed wrote:

> 
>> > Argyll doesn't ask to read the TID strip. This is what I get:

> 
>> If you do an un-tethered set of readings (ie. using the TID), 
>

>> does it work any better ? 
> 
>> 
> 
>> > The row patches from
Argyll are 6.4 by 10 mm while the patches from 
> 
>> > MonacoPROFILER
are 6.7 by 12 mm. The TID patches are 6mm by 10mm for 
> 
>> > Argyll
and 6mm by 12 mm for Monaco. 
> 
>> 
> 
>> I'd be really surprised if a
width difference of 2 mm is going to make 
> 
>> any difference, given
how much margin it has over the length. 
> 
>> 
> 
>> Are the Argyll
patches really 6.4 mm ? (ie. is the average over 
> 
>> the length of
all the patches in the strip ?). 
> 
>> I wonder if there is a small
scaling error in the printing, 
> 
>> and it is enough to take the patch
below its minimum. 
> 
>> 
> 
>> > Is the instrument sensing bleed from
the rows above and below that aren't 
> 
>> > being masked using the
Argyll chart? About a mm of the row above and 
> 
>> > below isn't
covered. 
> 
>> 
> 
>> Unlikely, since the aperture must be less than 6
mm if it is to read 
> 
>> the patch cleanly. 
> 
>> 
> 
>> Looking at
the test chart spec., it is possible to change the DTP20 
> 
>> patch
length to some other values, although I haven't currently allowed 
> 
>>
for it. I'll see about adding this for the next release. 
> 
>> 
> 
>>
Graeme Gill. 
> 
> My experience with the DTP20 and Argyll is that the
charts had to be printed in a certain very specific way to get the
readings to work. The issues that the OP describes are exactly what I
was seeing before I figured out how to correctly print the target. 
> 
>
I don't remember exactly what I had to do to get this working but I
think it had something to do with scaling and/or borders. SInce the OP
is on a Windows machine and I was using Linux what I had to do may not
be directly applicable. But I had to spend some time figuring out
exactly how to print the target to get this working. But I did get it
working after printing perhaps 4 or 5 test targets. 
> 
> Hal

  

Other related posts: