>> If scanin can't autodetect the target, the quality of the target shot >> is highly questionable, and so will the profiling results be. > > I have taken lots of images of test charts under lab conditions here, and it > happened quite often that scanin either could not detect the target properly, > or was off by a little (often by one patch row or column). This also has got a > lot to do with what's around the target. In photography it's a lot more > difficult to get that right than with scanners. > > In the cases where the target was not matched at all, or incorrectly, or just > with some inaccuracy slightly too high, finding and passing the fiducial > points has helped a lot. And the results of profiling were not really of > inferior quality. Great news! I'll do what anyone does and select which facts to believe. May I ask how you do to find the coordinates of the fiducial points? Maybe there is a quick way that I overlooked before? I found it a bit troublesome to use a photo editor and manually transfer the coordinates corner by corner. > Having said that, of course the single biggest aspect for ensuring good > profiling quality is to have a properly illuminated target. So curvature > matters a lot more than angle, just as you must try to avoid glare. My thought exactly! / KJ