Yea good point.. brightness of a green LED could equal the brightness of a blue LED but at 2x the "intensity" on the blue driver..
So lets go w/ the linear is a PAR dimming curve and gamma corrected dimming is a "natural" curve..
With the 2 choices there is no need for most to "worry" about err 'irregular" PAR changes in the dim cycle.
Biggest problem is not the ramp up because many do do that rather quickly in the overall scheme of things.
Few, though some, wouldn't go from say 100% to 95% dim as a PAR adjustment..I don't believe.
For those that critical.. a $200 Seneye will help..
YEA.. goofy language..
This table remaps linear input values (the numbers we’d like to use; e.g. 127 = half brightness) to nonlinear gamma-corrected output values (numbers producing the desired effect on the LED; e.g. 36 = half brightness).
127= half intensity..
Brightness is relative to the human eye response, if I got all this right.
OK for my pet peeve.. We don't measure "PAR" but "PPFD"..
If I have to live w/ PAR you need to live w/ "brightness"...
like 18% grey................
Your eyes are logarithmic detectors. That is, if a source gets brighter by a factor of 4, it will only seem brighter by a factor of 2 to you. If it increases by a factor of 32, it will only seem brighter by a factor of 5. If it increases in brightness by a factor of 128, it will only seem 7 times brighter to you.
The above are not the actual numbers. As you can imagine, measuring how bright things seem to people is very tricky, and varies from person to person. The important thing is that it is this weird logarithmic nature of your eyes that keeps middle gray from being 50%.
Industry is no help either..
The LI-190R measures Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR, in Ķmol of photons m-2 s-1).
It's not "just PAR".. Par over time and distance is PPFD..
Most light meters measure the instantaneous photosynthetic photon flux density in Ķmol m-2 s-1 and yet plant growth is determined by the integrated daily photosynthetic photon flux density in mol m-2 d-1.
won't even get into Genus and "species" thing..
Sorry Monday, and ranting..
Hmm back to the orig "issue"
OK to do linear readouts at the "PAR" scale in %'s
Now what about the "natural" scale..
If you want to keep the scale it needs to be dependent on the calc. value..
Using this table say at 8/14 (step 216)...is "50%"
both would be intensity.. nobody will care if we call it brightness.
Want to get real fancy add a DLI caculation:
Cumulative "PAR" based on scale over time..
Need to input "starting" PAR.
Nobody really uses it ..yet..except indirectly like "decrease your hours on".
On second thought.. too much work since youd need to integrate every channel ect.but food for another day and when built in PAR sensors are on lights..