| Forums | Register | Polls | Search | Statistics |
Display Calibration Light Illusion Forums / Display Calibration /  
 

User Error - Patch Scale

 
 
Page  Page 3 of 3:  « Previous  1  2  3

Author Steve

INF
Male
#31 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 15:50 
ebr9999:
I was asking about levels sent to HW (RPG), not generated by HW.

Then you will need to analyse the control data sent to the TPG, on the COMs data connection, whichever type of connection is used - Serial, USB, Ethernet...

Steve
Steve Shaw
Mob Boss at Light Illusion

Author ebr9999
ZRO
#32 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 15:53 
Steve:
measured data.

why are you saying that, when I am arguing about targets?

Author Steve

INF
Male
#33 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 15:56 
As I have repeatedly explained, and as has Leon, the triplet data WILL be rescaled, if you change the Patch Scaling on a recalled profile - just as it should be.

The rescaling is done to match the measured data, as that does NOT change.

Everything is as it should be, and as the user guides state.

Steve
Steve Shaw
Mob Boss at Light Illusion

Author liberator72
ZRO
Male
#34 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 17:02 | Edited by: liberator72 
ebr9999:
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 the case.

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.

Author ebr9999
ZRO
#35 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 20:56 
liberator72:
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 the case.

You are scaling your 0-255 range triplet to 16-235, but you are not scaling it to use the nearest integer value.

What I note is that data in BCS are stored in such a way (i.e without any rounding) that applying scaling to 16-235 they don't need any rounding, as they point to an integer value. As BCS are the data used for target calculation and LUT generation, which looks perfect.

I quote (agree) with the remaining part.

PS: I have clarified above that my testing inserting a stimulus in BCS that doesn't match exactly the corresponding 16-235 integer value does not make any sense.

Author Steve

INF
Male
#36 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 22:17 
ebr9999:
PS: I have clarified above that my testing inserting a stimulus in BCS that doesn't match exactly the corresponding 16-235 integer value does not make any sense.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Both Leon and I have explained everything many times now.
What are you still not understanding?
I will do my best to explain again.

Steve
Steve Shaw
Mob Boss at Light Illusion

Author ebr9999
ZRO
#37 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 22:44 
Steve:
What are you still not understanding?

I thought I was acknowledging Leon and your explanations are correct and I have understood the source of my misunderstanding .....

Author Steve

INF
Male
#38 | Posted: 7 Feb 2021 22:53 
Ah, it is the wording that confused me - I read it as you stating that adding a value was not working within ColourSpace...

I now see that you are agreeing that your understanding was in error.

Ok, all is good!

Steve
Steve Shaw
Mob Boss at Light Illusion

Author ebr9999
ZRO
#39 | Posted: 8 Feb 2021 07:37 
Steve:
Here is an Excel that may help those that struggle with understanding range conversion.
(It can be used to convert % into integer range (and vice-versa) too - just set the Input/Output values as required)

Based on your excel I have created a quick excel conversion tool for 0-255 patchset conversion.
Here attached

Author Steve

INF
Male
#40 | Posted: 8 Feb 2021 08:34 | Edited by: Steve 
The above discussion has been moved to its own thread, and shows user error in understanding Patch Scale.
It has been kept, rather than deleted, as it may help others with understanding.

Steve
Steve Shaw
Mob Boss at Light Illusion

Page  Page 3 of 3:  « Previous  1  2  3 
Display Calibration Light Illusion Forums / Display Calibration /
 User Error - Patch Scale

This topic is closed. New replies are not allowed.

 

 
 
Online now: Guests - 1
Members - 0
Max. ever online: 312 [11 Jun 2021 17:33]
Guests - 312 / Members - 0