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
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:
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:
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
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
The indexing is the same. You still have to position the instrument in
three places to set it up for a scan.