| ??? 09/08/08 17:08 Read: times |
#158084 - Russ' comment is right, though. Responding to: ???'s previous message |
You will need to divide by 255 instead of 256, to get the full output range.
Hence, instead of adding 0.5 * 256, you would have to add 0.5 * 255, which should be rounded down (to 127) instead of up, else you might end up above the high limit. Unfortunately, a division by 255 requires more CPU cycles than one by 256. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Scale offset using ints by byte position location | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Does type casting make sense here?... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Show us more......... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Here are defs and original function | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ints, at leastin Keil, at 16 bits wide. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Christoph, | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That makes things clearer. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A detail | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Take a look at the ranges | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Brett, that is helpful, I should add.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No floating-point math required. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Its working but I have a question on theory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rounding instead of truncate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh, that is interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Russ' comment is right, though. | 01/01/70 00:00 |