Why 127 is the new 128
Please enlighten or correct me as to where I'm wrong thinking on this notion
...or I may just be tilting at windmills...
I understand that when you take a number, say like, 255 [(a hole number integer) out of context] and divide it by 2 you get 127.5 and thus, through comprehensible rounding, bring it to 128 and provide for you an agreeable mid value of that numerical component. However, for this particular instance of the divisional application, I petition that it is more precisely accurate to round down rather than upward.
If we are to presume that this 0-255 range is the fractional value range of the defined 8bit/pixel per RGB(A) channel representation of color/grayscale; ala photoshop;etc. [expressed as 0-255 but regardless of this being the product of the binary system really amounts to being 2 to the power of 8 which = 256 (value levels)], then we must acknowledge that zero(0) is a whole integer onto itself and must be treated equal as to all the rest of the values in respect to being computed for math functions.
After all, dividing one (1 integer) in half gives you 0.5 no matter how you slice it, but zero divided by 2 is 0 and leaves you with a zero sum value when there arguably is half left over if you have assigned a single constant to slot zero(0). Therefore, in this case, zero(0) must be treated as a positive(1) when acknowledging its existence. To repeat, zero(0), solid black, should really be counted as a single(1) integer to be included (with the rest of the 255 values of gray and solid white) before dividing by 2 in order to give the proper divisional value. And the only way to do that is to temporarily shift the scale one value step to the right before division.
0-255 shifted positive one(1) step to the right = 1-256
256/2 = 128
Shift the scale backwards-left one step after division to restore the original position and you get a solid 127 for the mid value exactly in the middle where it should be, and without rounding up or down.
Now, regardless of all this, I recognize that to the average human eye, there's hardly a discernible difference between a value of 128 and 127 and really doesn't amount to much, and probably won't. However, keeping with a value of 128, in the context of what I just outlined, is a whole integer value off of precise when it need not be that way, if it matters in any way.
I can't help but be reminded of a time some time ago (not that long ago) when they thought the expansion of the universe was slowing down until they finally realized that they weren't accounting for the difference in the shift of the red light spectrum between recording timed measurements. After they realized their mistake and recomputed, it turns out the universe is indeed accelerating and expanding faster and faster every day.
Not that this matter has any sort of equal consequence to that whatsoever, but if 127 is the real mid value, then why not adopt and apply it if for nothing else than posterity sake?
Agree|disagree, pleased to hear your thoughts on this..
Thanks,
-P57
#normal map; #greyscale; #grayscale; #midtone; #midrange; #127vs128; #neutral value; #color; #game; #texture
...or I may just be tilting at windmills...
I understand that when you take a number, say like, 255 [(a hole number integer) out of context] and divide it by 2 you get 127.5 and thus, through comprehensible rounding, bring it to 128 and provide for you an agreeable mid value of that numerical component. However, for this particular instance of the divisional application, I petition that it is more precisely accurate to round down rather than upward.
If we are to presume that this 0-255 range is the fractional value range of the defined 8bit/pixel per RGB(A) channel representation of color/grayscale; ala photoshop;etc. [expressed as 0-255 but regardless of this being the product of the binary system really amounts to being 2 to the power of 8 which = 256 (value levels)], then we must acknowledge that zero(0) is a whole integer onto itself and must be treated equal as to all the rest of the values in respect to being computed for math functions.
After all, dividing one (1 integer) in half gives you 0.5 no matter how you slice it, but zero divided by 2 is 0 and leaves you with a zero sum value when there arguably is half left over if you have assigned a single constant to slot zero(0). Therefore, in this case, zero(0) must be treated as a positive(1) when acknowledging its existence. To repeat, zero(0), solid black, should really be counted as a single(1) integer to be included (with the rest of the 255 values of gray and solid white) before dividing by 2 in order to give the proper divisional value. And the only way to do that is to temporarily shift the scale one value step to the right before division.
0-255 shifted positive one(1) step to the right = 1-256
256/2 = 128
Shift the scale backwards-left one step after division to restore the original position and you get a solid 127 for the mid value exactly in the middle where it should be, and without rounding up or down.
Now, regardless of all this, I recognize that to the average human eye, there's hardly a discernible difference between a value of 128 and 127 and really doesn't amount to much, and probably won't. However, keeping with a value of 128, in the context of what I just outlined, is a whole integer value off of precise when it need not be that way, if it matters in any way.
I can't help but be reminded of a time some time ago (not that long ago) when they thought the expansion of the universe was slowing down until they finally realized that they weren't accounting for the difference in the shift of the red light spectrum between recording timed measurements. After they realized their mistake and recomputed, it turns out the universe is indeed accelerating and expanding faster and faster every day.
Not that this matter has any sort of equal consequence to that whatsoever, but if 127 is the real mid value, then why not adopt and apply it if for nothing else than posterity sake?
Agree|disagree, pleased to hear your thoughts on this..
Thanks,
-P57
#normal map; #greyscale; #grayscale; #midtone; #midrange; #127vs128; #neutral value; #color; #game; #texture
Replies