So I could get good results even when pointing the device without a ruler or
doohickey directly on the target?
By the way: I also don't have the small doohickey... impossible to get as a
spare part :-(
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2017 um 17:44 Uhr
Von: "Ben Goren" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: [argyllcms] Re: DTP41 - is it useful?
On Dec 20, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Lars-Daniel Weber <Lars-Daniel.Weber@xxxxxx>
I've heard, the gap between i1 Pro and target is important in terms of
I'd bet more than a cup of coffee against that being the case. In terms of
the optics and the physics, I have a difficult time thinking of how that
could matter. At most, there could be an inverse-square thing going on with
the brightness of the illuminant, resulting in different L* values...but I
wouldn't expect it to be significant. Even if measurable, I'd expect it to be
irrelevant for all but the most critical work.
It'd be easy enough to test. The kit comes with a spot measurement doohickey
that makes it especially easy to position the instrument...center the hole of
the doohickey over the sample, plop the instrument on the doohickey, and get
your reading. It would be trivial to compare readings with and without the
doohickey (which is the same thickness, etc., as the ruler).
What I _would_ bet is that the gap is there for the ruler to keep the
instrument from dragging along the surface of whatever you're measuring
(which could be fragile or dirty or whatever). And for the doohickey, much
the same. Especially considering the rubber feet on the bottom of the
doohickey, you could, if careful, get readings from a sample of wet paint (or
whatever) as it dries.