I have a problem with the 129CGATS spreadsheet…both step 1 and step 129 Lab L values are set to zero, making it impossible to refine my first linearization as the QTR-Linearize-Quad.app reports “The Lab values are not in order. Cannot be linearized” in the -out.txt file. Have done 5 papers all resulting in the same error. Colormunki measuring data pasted into the 129STEP spreadsheet looks ok in both step 1 & 129.
Enclosed the Colormunki measurment csv-file, the 129CGATS export txt-file and the resulting linearization -out.txt-file.
I copied and pasted the txt from your CSV file into your 129 step tool to see if there was a bug and it got rid of the zero. This may be an issue with your excel or the CSV file? Excel would not open the file. I had to open it in google spreadsheets to copy and paste the txt.
Thanks Walker,
I have done the procedure according to the pro manual, opening the csv-files in google spreadsheet, copying and pasting the correct measurements into the error corrector. The 51 step target files was no problem. But all the 129 step target files for 5 papers came out with errors…
Anyways, when you suggested the csv-files would not open in Excel, I had to give it a go. Importing the csv´s was no problem, and when I copied the data from Excel to the error corrector the 129CGATS came out ok and the linerazing process could proceed
I noticed the measurement errors, but is´t that the whole idea about the error corrector? By correcting the negative numbers in the L Falses column?
Some errors are to large for the corrector (aka they were manual miss-position of the reader on the patches). So this is why there is a “falses” column to shows you where those large errors occur.
Read the instructions that are written directly inside of the Error Corrector google sheet. It tells you what to do.
The instruction inside the corrector only says the same as the manual:
“6. Correct for any falses in the L* (as shown by the Falses column).”
If I increase the L-value with the number in the L Falses, the L Falses cell goes to “Null”… if I increase the value to a intermediate value between the L-value in the cells above and below, the L Falses cell it goes to “0”. What is correct?
The idea is to look at the row of L* numbers and determine which number is out of wack (aka, it’s rising instead of lowering in value as you read down).
You change this number to be roughly middle between it’s upper and lower cousins.
I may do another itteration with the 129 step target for the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Smooth 188g I enclosed starting this tread, as it had the most distinct errors of the 5.
