why are you saying that, when I am arguing about targets?
As I have been trying to explain to you for several days now, and outside of this forum, your understanding of what is happening is incorrect.
You seem to think that the BCS files are storing the 16-235 data as normalised in the 0-1 range based on a 0-255 scale. I have explained, and shown many times now that this is not
You are scaling your 0-255 range triplet to 16-235, but you are not scaling it to use the nearest integer value.
Let's take your example of triplet 214 in the 16-235 range.
When scaling from full range to limited range, both full range 230 and full range 231 will become 214 when rounded to nearest integer. When not rounded, 230 will become 213.5294117647 and 231 will become 214.3882352941.
When you normalise these values to the 0-1 range within the 16-235 scale, you will get 213.5294117647 normalised to 0.9019607843 and 214.3882352941 normalised to 0.9058823529.Neither of these are correct for 16-235
There is no decimalised version of 214.
214 is 214 and always will be 214
214 normalised is 0.9041095890.
When you select Patch Scale 16-235, and send 214 to your TPG, 214 is sent, Nothing else, not 213.5294117647 and not 214.3882352941.
The BCS is correct, the targets are correct, and the triplet sent is correct. Independently tested and verified by myself and checked using the DVDO as a signal analyser.
I know Ted has also checked and come to the same conclusion.
There are some caveats (unrelated to this discussion) that I have discussed with Steve and I have been assured they will be taken care of in the future. But as far as this specific discussion goes, everything is working correctly provided you use the correctly patch set with the correct patch scale setting