[argyllcms] Re: Limitations on Colormunki patch sizes?
- From: Serhat Abaci <serhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:16:49 +0100
I dont understand the fuzz about creating the ULTIMATE patch size for the
CM... since the i1 Pro and I1-pro 2 is wide aviable... Cool thing would be
an "open Source" i1IO automatic messurement table which can handle various
argyllcms compatible devices. Since 3D Printing is aviable EVERYWHERE this
could be done fairly easy.
2013/11/12 Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 11/12/2013 07:57 AM, BC Rider wrote:
>
>
>> > BC Rider wrote:
>>
>
>
> If I'm going to make
>> a scanning apparatus I want to go as small as possible. What is the
>> minimum patch size that still retains full technical performance? 6mm
>> aperture size?
>>
>
>
> Once converted an old A3 HP pen plotter to carry a Spectrocam across
> targets with an HPGL driver. It worked but an HP Z does it much better.
> What is important is that the patch to sensor distance is like it should
> be, any higher position of the ColorMunki and the readings can still be
> accepted by the software but are not correct.The HP Z's take a longer
> measurement time on dark/black patches, you might consider that or adjust
> the dark patches that they are larger.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla
>
> http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
> December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.
>
>
Other related posts:
