View Full Version : Chart errors...again

03-17-2011, 02:06 PM
We just ran a form on our heatset web and when I read the charts in with Colorflow I get the following error, "Cannot activate measurement. The measurement contains the following bad patches. BN41,CG23."

When you click "ok" what happens to my data? Is it gone? I looked at the patches in question and they looked fine to me. Ironically there are a few swatches that scuffed in the sheeter but these patches didn't throw up any errors.

I had 6 sheets from the beginning the middle and end of the run and there were 6 pages on each sheet. So 6 pages x 6 sheets = about 3 hours of scanning on the i1iO table and none of it is any good?

Suggestions anyone.

03-17-2011, 03:17 PM
Hey Rick,
ColorFlow keeps the measurement data regardless of measurement error / lack of activation (creation of a forward model or color response). If you look in the Measurements tab> Inactive Measurements section, you will find your measurement set. You can select it and export it to the file system and open the file up in Excel or some other spreadsheet application.

To troubleshoot this problem, perform the following procedure:
1. Freeze the header in the Excel list so that you can see column "titles" as you scroll through your measurement set. This will make it easier to sort the data.
2. Optional step. Filter the data by column headers, I usually just use the Auto Filter.
3. Find the patch BN41.
4. Look at the CIELAB values of this patch and compare these values to other patches that have the same CMYK input tint build. It is likely you have a repeat of this patch, given the dimensions of the chart you described. If the values are totally different, it is likely that you had a mis-measure for BN-41. In this case, I would just get rid of the mis-measure (delete the row from the excel table); this will work because we already have at least one patch that is the same as BN-41, which is just extraneous at this point.
5. If you do not have duplicates of BN41, then take your i1Pro and spot read the BN41 patch in any measurement program such as i1Match.
6. Compare the CIELAB of the spot read to the CIELAB of the measured value in the excel file. If they are different, then we may have a problem. If they are the same, or close, then we also may have a problem.

Let me explain #6 more specifically.

For the case where the measurement of BN41 is different (spot vs CF measure):
- If you only have a single patch for the input tint that composes BN41, and this measurement is flawed, then there had to be some event that caused the i1iO to measure the patch incorrectly. Maybe the arm "jumped" or moved during measurement. Sometimes this happens with incorrectly tuned height adjustment of the iO arm. The problem here is that you can't automatically take the spot CIELAB reading and just paste it into your measurement file. ColorFlow requires the spectral data to compute the tonal response. So, the only solution here is to re-measure.

For the case where the measurement of BN41 is the same (spot vs CF measure):
- This means that there was no error in the iO measurement and something else is going on. If this is the condition you find yourself in, please log a call with the TRC and they will work towards a resolution; if they cannot resolve, they will escalate the case.

The good news for all of this is that the methodology for measurement is getting enhanced in CF 1.2, where we will have a "Page Remeasure" function that will allow you to simply remeasure just one page (7 minute time investment) as opposed to remeasure an entire sheet (45 minute investment and a major pain in the a$$).

I'd also like to mention that CF is particular about measurement and gets "cranky" when measurement data doesn't conform to expected values; this happens for a reason. The reason is to give you the best possible forward model and therefore curve and profile creation result on the market today. You will find other measurement utilities that will measure all day long and not complain about potential mis-measures. You won't get errors on measurement, but I question the modelling as a result of measurement with error built in out of the starting gate.


03-17-2011, 03:26 PM

As always thanks for the quick follow up and great info.

Looks like I have a little homework to do. I'll post back what I find.

I would imagine 1.2 is in beta now, when can we expect a release?


03-17-2011, 04:32 PM
Beta 1 is in progress right now. We are expecting Beta 2 with Prinergy integration enhancements in July, ending in release in Fall 2011.