Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- Subject: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- From: Mike Eddington <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:00:14 -0500
How exactly is one supposed to be able to "calibrate" to some
unknown condition at some level of degradation from the only
seemingly repeatable state?
The point I was attempting to make regarding press calibration was not
in regards to optimum versus average results. All results should be
within tolerance of the aim target regardless of best or average
conditions . My point was regarding the overall stability of the
device. For example, its possible that variability increases after
press maintenance, falling slightly before reaching a plateau of
stability. I'm not suggesting that calibration be put off after press
maintenance (or with a new press) but that trending should be such to
either increase process control as stability decreases due to
mechanical/chemical deficiencies, or iterate the calibration. At no
time am I suggesting that the tolerances for meeting standards/
specification be breached, or that the press be run with substandard
consumables or lax process control, but rather that the life of the
consumables could potentially be prolonged by repeating calibration
rather than narrowing the process control window even tighter.
I would also make a point that performing press maintenance doesn't
necessarily equate returning the device to a repeatable state.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden