I've been working with this on and off for quite some time now.
I've also had it working for quite some time now ... (with 1 exception).
It creates some of the smoothest fading effects I've seen so far, so I really want to figure out this one last problem with BAM theory.
The problem happens when passing in either direction of 128 DutyCycle.
Before that point, after that point, even continuously at that point, all works perfectly. But as it transitions from either above or below 128 there is a visble BLINK from the LEDs.
It's taken me Waaaay too long to figure out why, but I'm now pretty sure this is the reason ...
With anything below 128, the waveform looks something like this ...
<img src="http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3127" /> <!---->
<br>
And with anything equal or above 128, it looks like this ...
<img src="http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3125" /> <!---->
A continuous stream of either of the above pulses works perfect.
It's only in the transition from below to above 128 that 1 out of the 100 pulses that second looks like this ...
<img src="http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3126" /> <!---->
The change in pulse positions creates an ON period equal to 255, just for 1 period. Then it's fine again.
But that 1 period, is extremely visible.
Going from 127 to 128 it's a bright blink. From 128 to 127 it's a Dim blink, because they line up the other way (combined period = 0 dutycycle).
The visual appeal and resulting reduction in processor requirements are too great to just give up on BAM.
So I ask for your thoughts.
<br>


		
		
						
					


				

Bookmarks