RE: Measuring "standard IT8.7/4 Random" on iSisXL using ColorPort 2.0
RE: Measuring "standard IT8.7/4 Random" on iSisXL using ColorPort 2.0
- Subject: RE: Measuring "standard IT8.7/4 Random" on iSisXL using ColorPort 2.0
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:32:55 -0500
Greetings Bill,
No, I have not gotten to make any comparisons between MeasureTool-generated
measurements and ColorPort-generated measurements -- yet. But I will soon
and I pray that I won't run into the same difficulties you ran into :(
At any rate, I've always had the good fortune that using some color
utilities like PatchTool bailed me out of patch layout kind of troubles.
I'm only starting to get my feet wet with ColorPort 2.0 since I usually
measure through Heidelberg ColorToolbox v10. Lucky for me these days, I
don't have to contend with the constraints of narrow web flexo presses like
you have to, so I can "spread my wings" as much as I want to and live in the
full impunity of using the standard IT8.7/4 Random testchart in terms of
press layout real estate ;-)
This being said, have you had a chance to use XRGA in ColorPort 2?
Best / Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden
[mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On
Behalf Of Bill Whitfield
Sent: January-23-11 5:24 PM
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Measuring "standard IT8.7/4 Random" on iSisXL using ColorPort
2.0
Greetings,
Hi Roger. I use MeasureTool for my profiles but had some extra time recently
and decided to play with ColorPort. I use a custom 1023 patch target I made
in MeasureTool because of having to profile some of our narrow web flexo
presses. First thing I noticed is that when I used the same reference file
that MeasureTool made for my custom 1023 target to make a target in
ColorPort, the layout of the patches was different. After playing with the
page sizes in ColorPort, I was able to make the target look the same as the
target I created in MeasureTool. I wanted the targets to be the same so I
could compare measurements in MeasureTool. Maybe playing with the page size
will help you with the format of you IT8 target.
After measuring the target in ColorPort and saving it as a Profilemaker 5
file, I noticed that the patch locations had been shifted so I could not
compare in MeasureTool. No matter what format I tried to save from
ColorPort, I could not get the saved file to have the same patch location
format that I had from MeasureTool.
I then measured the target 3 times in ColorPort and compared them in
MeasureTool and found great discrepancies. For instance MeasureTool reported
Sigma, Total 1.27. Best 90% 0.31, Worst 10% 2.46 and Maximum Total of 17.88
when comparing 2 successive measurements of the same target using ColorPort.
While successive measurements of the same target using MeasureTool reported
Sigma, Total 0.07, Best 90% 0.04, Worst 10% and Maximum Total of 0.53.
I was using an iSis (smaller format version) in both ColorPort and
MeasureTool and selecting not to cut UV.
Have you done any comparisons such as these?
Since the numbers from MeasureTool are real close to those I get with the
530 I use at press, and the ColorPort numbers are not, I wonder what is
going on and about the integrity of measurements from ColorPort.
-Bill-
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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