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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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