Yves,
as a very first step I’d recommend to follow Roger’s suggestion to check if
there are differences in measurement values when you rotate the instrument in
e.g. 10° steps.
The ColorMunki has a directional illumination.
Structured materials and directional illumination is a combination which
usually doesn’t give very plausible readings.
Claas
Am 09.12.2019 um 13:22 schrieb <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Yves,
In general, to get the best results possible, should we just pruned outthese
outliers? Would taking multiple measures of the patches and use theaverage
or the "median" be a good practice or just a waste of time?
You need to understand what you're doing. In the context that the device
(paper) is highly non-linear, *all* the patches are important to build a
model of the output.
Is there a way you can start with a tiny patch set? Instead of the full
1000+?
That way, less chances of errors. I seem to remember, a long time ago, that
Argyll was able to make profiles from as low as 60 some patches. If that was
still the case, you could make all the measurements one at a time (if the
software allows manual reading) and analyze each patch. You need to better
understand what you're measuring to be able to tell if there is something
wrong with the generated profile. That's what I do. You have to understand
the underlying device behavior from the measurements.
/ Roger
