On Saturday 12 February 2005 19:56, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Hi Lourens, > > On Saturday 12 February 2005 08:09, Lourens Veen wrote: > > On Saturday 12 February 2005 04:56, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > Excuse me, I attached attached yesterday's code to today's email. > > > Here's the updated code. > > > > Took me a while to realise, but I've found the problem. You get 18 > > bits relative to the [1, 2) range, I get 17 bits relative to the > > (0.5, 1] range. These are equivalent, because the exponent changes. > > This stands to reason because your interpolation expression is the same > as mine. I presume you've arranged for your multiply to be unsigned. > There might be differences in the way the table samples are calculated, > I didn't check that.
It doesn't really matter that much anyway. As long as it works, it's fine with me :-). > The interpolation should be done in the [1, 2) range to match the range > of the mantissa. Actually, I'm inputting the range [0, 65536), and outputting the range [0, 65536). That's what we need in hardware. The exponent is just a subtraction, and the sign remains the same. Lourens _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
