>>>>> "SS" == Søren Sandmann <[email protected]> writes:
SS> There are two functions being talked about here: Of course. SS> f: uint16_t -> double SS> and SS> g: double -> uint16_t SS> When you say "multiply (with saturation) by IMAX+1 and divide by IMAX" SS> I assume you mean SS> f(i) = i / 65535.0 SS> and SS> g(x) = MAX (x * 65536, 65535.0) The latter of course should be MAX(0.,MAX(x*65536.,65535.)). Saturation works both ways. ;^) SS> which is indeed what cairo does now. As I write. SS> I think everyone agrees that SS> f(i) = i / 65535.0 SS> is the right choice for f, At the time there were some who did not. I'm glad that is in the past. SS> but for g, I am proposing a different formula. I noticed. SS> that as argued elsewhere has less error. I didn't add an argument for the status quo because my post in this thread was more of a devil's advocate and I wanted to think about it some more. Equal-size-intervals is of course why I concluded as I did back then. Your argument is interesting. -JimC -- James Cloos <[email protected]> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
