Hi Jon,
I printed a new negative using the Draft 1 curve, measured it, and put the new measurements and the draft1 curve into the Excel tool. Instead of getting closer to linear I got this crazy result. Does this seem like a step forward to you and should I use this new curve to keep going in the process? I just want to make sure I’m not heading off into the wrong direction by using this. I’ve also attached the measurements from the print made with the draft1 curve. Thank you for all your help here!
Here is my profiler screen. I had to adjust the patch width (compared with yours) to get the layout right. I’ve also attached what I see when I set my patch layout to your measurements. When I adjust the patch width what I see on screen matches my print and when I measure it seems to work out in terms of location of the patch I’m measuring relative to the screen.
Ok, I just re measure using spot vs single scan and got something that looks WAY more accurate. Should I correct for the FALSEs at the top or leave as is?
Your measurements order is wrong… Or the file format you are saving may be. Instead of measuring across the target columns A1, B1, C1, D1, etc… Your measurements are A1, A2, A3, A4, etc…
You can send me your Save As screenshot when you save your CGATs
Here are my original measurements after I printed the target with the original Pro-PiezoDN-PtPd-DevOut.quad. It looks to me like the measurement order is wrong here too, am I right? DN Pro PtPd original measurments.txt (29.7 KB)
Ok I spent more time with your data and your measurements are all over the place for each 21 steps - and if you are seeing that visually in your print - that is each of the sixteen groups of 21 steps look all over the place - then how you are applying your sensitizer is all over the place - which I do not think it is.
It may be that your iOne Profiler needs to be factory refurbished if they still do that that far back. Perhaps your instrument took a fall off the table and it simply is reading all over the place as a result. Normally with a fall you used to send back in for certification - but that xRite as a company does not really exist anymore… Still you may try and contact them.
your original measurements are way to “light” to be “normal” but they function within our software for our software to make corrections to it. Did you see that your original target printed exceptionally light? In any event, the original measurements are not jumbled in the same way your second reading is…literally seemingly out of order producing a staggered set of 21 steps readings.
I just do not know how I can troubleshoot this with you - as I believe if you sent me the targets for measuring I would probably not get the same results as you.
Racked my brains on this a last time - and looking at my old receipts etc I find that i1 Pro shipped with ProfileMaker and therefore it is not going to be compatible with i1 Profiler versions. All of our targets are organized for i1 Profiler. I think your instrument is interpreting our safety zones as “patches” and that could explain the data you are getting.
You should either revert back to the software that came with your instruments as you are using a later version that does not have support for the i1 Basic (vi) and our targets are not designed for the i1 Basic (vi) . i1 (vi) was mid late 2000s.
Just read our targets in single measurement spot mode with i1 Profiler… If that works - then you can continue with the i1 software… otherwise I think your targets will need to be regenerated using the Profilemaker that shipped originally with i1 Basic and you may need poke around in xRite historical software downloads link above.
Do the spot mode and let me know if that solved your issue. It should unless the instrument itself is in poor mechanical.
InkjetMall Information
Why buy from us
My InkjetMall account
Contact Info