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.