FYI, support for the DTP20 also ended in 2014, I'm guessing that all old
products were dumped at the same time. And with the "new" structure since
buying Gretag, there is no more willingness to do anything for anyone.
Before the purchase Xrite was much easier to work with and far more
helpful, I guess they turned service over to the Gretag people who were
always difficult.
I'll have to break out my old i1pro (rev A) spectros and see if they still
work, if not I guess they are trash because I'm certain they are no longer
supported either. I'll have to try a new battery in the Pulse and see where
it goes, once I figure out what that pack is made from.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:56 AM Refik Telhan <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Roger,
As the official support to this product has ended long ago, I simply
measure a number of patches with different devices and check the
relationship between them. It is on its third lamp. Once this lamp runs
out, it will rest in peace.
Refik
*From: *<argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Reply-To: *<argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Date: *19 March 2019 Tuesday 15:15
*To: *<argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject: *[argyllcms] Re: Altering patch size - smaller?
HI Rafik,
How do you keep your Spectroscan “calibrated”?
/ Roger
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Refik Telhan (Redacted sender "rtelhan" for DMARC)
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:02 AM
*To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Altering patch size - smaller?
Hi Greg,
I have a 17-year old Spectroscan. The oils used in lubrication get
oxidized and become sticky in a couple of years. I have cleaned and applied
thinnest of oils a couple of times but after a couple of year all got
oxidized. Finally I removed all residues of the oxidized lubricants and
applied a “dry” lubricant. The product I have used is Winkel’s “PTFE Dry
Lubrication Spray”. CRC’s “Dry PTFE Lube” appears to be a similar product.
https://www.amazon.com/CRC-03044-Lubricating-Spray-Weight/dp/B0013J84BY/ref=pd_sbs_328_1/142-5699708-6233230?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0013J84BY&pd_rd_r=93a7550b-4a1b-11e9-babf-6b68e09b90b8&pd_rd_w=9mAQ3&pd_rd_wg=2XiDp&pf_rd_p=588939de-d3f8-42f1-a3d8-d556eae5797d&pf_rd_r=CWYNKFEYMRK8CHQSBHXN&psc=1&refRID=CWYNKFEYMRK8CHQSBHXN
I did this 10 years ago and the Spectroscan has not missed a beat since
then.
Bset regards,
Refik Telhan
*From: *<argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Greg E <
gwe.a43@xxxxxxxxx>
*Reply-To: *<argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Date: *18 March 2019 Monday 17:11
*To: *<argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject: *[argyllcms] Re: Altering patch size - smaller?
I guess this may have been all for nothing... My Spectroscan has a bad
motor on the Y axis (I think). As soon as the belt tensions it, the
movement gets stiff (power on or power off) so I assume a bad bearing on
the end at the pulley. So unless I can find another stepper motor with the
same specifications, or find a donor table cheap, this device is out of
commission.
If anyone has a scan table that they don't use, or wants to buy a
Spectrolino to go with their table, let me know.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:48 PM Greg E <gwe.a43@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Graeme,
I did some testing back many years ago and didn't see any differences in
the measurements with the smaller patches. The 5.5 was called out as the
absolute minimum size, and thankfully my x-y table was accurate enough over
sizes that small. I'll give it a try when I get a new usb-serial adapter
for testing and report back. Probably take a week or two.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 21:40 Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greg E wrote:
Hi,
I needed to pull the command out of the littleArgylllGUIgoing
and insert the -a .80, this fit everything on a single sheet, but I'm
to need to get a new usb-serial adapter before I can test it.
The usual spectrolino measurement aperture is 4.5mmm while the default
hex patch diameter is 8mm, providing a 1.75 mm margin for positioning error
and diffusion of light within the paper affecting the measurement.
I guess you may get away with a 6mm patch, but it leaves less mechanical
margin, and causes the measurements to be more influenced by the color
of adjacent patches.
Another question is about the Spectroscan... Having used it on squares I
remember that I needed to touch down on three corners so that the device
new the size of the target. Does this still happen with the hex patches?
Yes, it's the same.
Colorport defined the three corners with a number so that you knew whichto
ones to position and which order to do them in. The hex patches are new
me.
The indexing is the same. You still have to position the instrument in
three places to set it up for a scan.
Cheers,
Graeme Gill.
