Idea for 16 bit solution
-
omar86
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:09 pm
- Real Name:
Hi all! I was wondering how to bypass the problem of 16 bit support on dimmer channel or other channels. What's about to create a specific channel of max value 65536 instead of 255? Isn't that the same that having two 16 bit channels together (for example pan and pan fine, dimmer and dimmer fine)?
-
janosvitok
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:05 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
- Real Name: Jano Svitok
- Contact:
The devil is in the details... 
Right, one 16 bit channel is equivalent to 2 8 bit channels. The problem is that QLC+ uses everywhere 8bit channels as well as DMX does.
To support 16 bit channels internally, much of QLC+ must be changed. It's a change of one of the QLC+ base principles.
So unless you provide the details, this idea doesn't bring much. Sorry
Right, one 16 bit channel is equivalent to 2 8 bit channels. The problem is that QLC+ uses everywhere 8bit channels as well as DMX does.
To support 16 bit channels internally, much of QLC+ must be changed. It's a change of one of the QLC+ base principles.
So unless you provide the details, this idea doesn't bring much. Sorry
-
Baer
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:40 am
- Real Name: Matthias
Just out of curiousity:
What about adjusting the GUI Representation, meaning adding a possiblitity to combine 2 channels in View, but let QLC+ internalle handle this as 2 Channels?
Not sure if any QLC+ internals prevent using this approach, but seems to be the one with the leas rewrite of QLC+ core...
What about adjusting the GUI Representation, meaning adding a possiblitity to combine 2 channels in View, but let QLC+ internalle handle this as 2 Channels?
Not sure if any QLC+ internals prevent using this approach, but seems to be the one with the leas rewrite of QLC+ core...
-
MrBinNZ
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:59 am
- Real Name: Drew Bateman
I'd also like to hear if this is workable!Baer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:42 am Just out of curiousity:
What about adjusting the GUI Representation, meaning adding a possiblitity to combine 2 channels in View, but let QLC+ internalle handle this as 2 Channels?
Not sure if any QLC+ internals prevent using this approach, but seems to be the one with the leas rewrite of QLC+ core...
-
lightweaver
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 10:04 pm
- Real Name: Brent
+1 for me as well to add to the long term. Lots of fixtures utilising 16 bit on attributes besides pan and tilt
-
janosvitok
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:05 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
- Real Name: Jano Svitok
- Contact:
Problem with Baer's solution is this:
The faders are not a problem. You will get the same result using 2 fader setting 2 channels as you would using 1 fader setting 2 channels.
The real problem is with fading 16 channels, and 16 bit EFX in relative mode.
Fading
Currently Coarse and Fine channels are faded in the same time. So when you go from [0,0] to [255,255], you have 255 steps [1,1], [2,2],...[255,255].
Even worse: fade from [0,255] to [255,0]: [1, 254], [2, 253],...
What you want in the first case is [0,1],...,[0,255], [1,0],[1,1],...[1,255]...[255,255]. Can you see the difference?
This fading is deep in the engine.
EFX relative mode
In this case when you add values, they may over/underflow, so after writing to Fine channel, also the Coarse channel may need adjustments.
This is again deep in the engine.
The faders are not a problem. You will get the same result using 2 fader setting 2 channels as you would using 1 fader setting 2 channels.
The real problem is with fading 16 channels, and 16 bit EFX in relative mode.
Fading
Currently Coarse and Fine channels are faded in the same time. So when you go from [0,0] to [255,255], you have 255 steps [1,1], [2,2],...[255,255].
Even worse: fade from [0,255] to [255,0]: [1, 254], [2, 253],...
What you want in the first case is [0,1],...,[0,255], [1,0],[1,1],...[1,255]...[255,255]. Can you see the difference?
This fading is deep in the engine.
EFX relative mode
In this case when you add values, they may over/underflow, so after writing to Fine channel, also the Coarse channel may need adjustments.
This is again deep in the engine.
-
bcrotaz
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:21 am
- Real Name: Bryan Crotaz
If this is still a problem, here's my solution:
Use float internally and convert to integer at the extremities:
Change the core to use float between 0 and 1, everywhere - this might even be a search and replace from byte to float.
Master fader is now applied as value*master, so the maths is very easy.
Then when you render it to DMX, floor(value * 255) for an 8 bit channel or floor(value * 65535) for a 16 bit channel.
In the UI, floor(value * slider_length_in_pixels) etc
Use float internally and convert to integer at the extremities:
Change the core to use float between 0 and 1, everywhere - this might even be a search and replace from byte to float.
Master fader is now applied as value*master, so the maths is very easy.
Then when you render it to DMX, floor(value * 255) for an 8 bit channel or floor(value * 65535) for a 16 bit channel.
In the UI, floor(value * slider_length_in_pixels) etc
-
mcallegari
- Posts: 4711
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:09 am
- Location: Italy
- Real Name: Massimo Callegari
- Contact:
