Damaged Data Matrix Code

Those of you who are familiar with 1D barcode verification will be familiar with some of the ISO parameters in 2D verification, but there are also some aspects that will be very unfamiliar. These differences are even greater than one might think considering that 2D symbols can be printed in two very different ways.  2D symbols conventionally printed on labels and cartons share the same reflectivity and contrast characteristics as 1D barcodes. But 2D symbols can also be imaged directly onto metal and other relatively low reflectivity substrates using a technology called DPM or Direct Part Mark.

ANU Error in Data Matrix Code
ANU Error

DPM requires the verifier to have special lighting in order to create as much reflective difference as possible between the symbol and the background. The idea is to optimize the opportunity for the verifier to decode the symbol, which captures the data essential for compiling the ISO evaluation and grade. DPM verification is not an ISO specification—it is an AIM specification that can be used in conjunction with some ISO parameters in order to test and grade the symbol.

AIM DPM verification does not test or grade Symbol Contract, Modulation or Reflectance Margin, for obvious reasons. However, AIM DPM verification uniquely tests and grades a parameter called Minimum Reflectance. This parameter examines whether the symbol’s Rmax or light values (typically the background) meet a minimum reflectance threshold in order to provide sufficient reflective difference between the background and the symbol itself.

The ISO specification for print quality of 2D symbols is ISO 15415. The parameters that both ISO and AIM DPM test and grade in evaluating 2D symbols are:

Grid Nonuniformity error
  • ANU or Axial Nonuniformity which measures the difference in X and Y distortion of the 2D symbol and grades it to a tolerance;
  • Decodability which measures the amount of tolerance remaining for the scanner once the symbol is in its final form and ready for scanning;
  • Fixed Pattern Damage which measures the integrity of the non-data carrying standard features of the 2D symbol which help the scanner orient itself to the symbol position;
  • GNU or Grid Nonuniformity which measures how accurately the elements or dots that comprise the symbol fall on a uniform grid pattern; and
  • UEC or Unused Error Correction; unlike 1D barcodes that have error detection capability, 2D symbols have data correction If none of it is used to decode the symbol, the symbol is not downgraded; if some of it is used, the symbol is downgraded based on how much as a percentage is used.

The common characteristic of 2D verification to 1D verification is its rationale: to predict the likelihood that the symbol will successfully scan in its intended usage, whether that be identifying a shipping container in a retail supply chain, a consumer item at point of sale or a drug at bedside dosing in a hospital. Barcode performance is important because bad barcodes are no longer just a blemish on the customer experience; they can be a matter of life and death.

3db Barcode Testimonial

Our company (an advanced software company) recently worked with Barcode Test to source a barcode verifier.  Not long ago, we were awarded a contract requiring products to be marked with IUIDs in accordance with MIL-STD-130.  For that standard, marking labels must pass a verification test that evaluates many variables (contrast, size, clarity, syntax, modularity, and more).  After a thorough search, we reduced our options to a select few.

In our search for a verifier, the Axicon line caught our attention.  Barcode Test is our regional reseller for this product.   From the beginning, they were very prompt with their responses.  We ended up having a quick call with John Nachtrieb to go over our needs.  John was extremely easy to work with and provided a lot of great information.  He was very knowledgeable on the matter and was quick to offer up a demo unit (free of charge).

Upon receiving the demo verifier and testing it, a few questions arose.  John joined a call with us and answered all our questions.  Ultimately, the Axicon verifier wasn’t the best fit for us, so we shipped the demo back.  John was completely understanding.  A few weeks later, Barcode Test reached back out with another possible verifier for us to try.  While they didn’t sell that brand, they just wanted to help us find the best option that met our needs. They even offered to send us the unit that they have in-house to see if it worked to our liking. 

Barcode Test is truly a great company to work with.  Their service and willingness to help the customer are far beyond what you typically get from other companies.  They are experts in barcode quality assurance and seem willing to help in any way they can (even if that means not getting a sale and recommending another option that better fits the customer’s needs).  If anyone is in the market for barcode verification/scanning services or products, I would highly recommend giving Barcode Test a call.

Regards,

Production Manager