[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: reverse engineering pwcx
> The LavaRnd guys examined the pixels on the actual
> CCD chip. It's 160x120. The 'decompression' is
> just interpolation.

First of all, it's not a CCD chip. It's CMOS.

Now, here's a Bayer pattern:


Don't put much faith in the 160x120 number. Suppose
that the chip is in a Bayer pattern, with 160x120
of those. Well, how many pixels is that? Who knows.
You'd sort of have 160x120, but with double the
green data. Since green carries most of the luminance
information, producing a larger image is reasonable.

Suppose the pattern is larger. The "Bayer" name in
the code may well be misleading. Each "pixel" that
was counted could be a 4x4 grid with 6 red subpixels,
8 green subpixels, and 2 blue subpixels. What's that?
You count 160x120, because it looks that way, but
it's 640x480 subpixels.

To correctly convert this to pixels while keeping the
maximum amount of image data, I think you need to
use the sinc() function. Problem is, you're getting
pre-mangled data from the camera. So it gets a bit
more complicated.

BTW, what are the legal problems? I didn't click to
agree on some EULA. I didn't sign an NDA. I don't
see how this could be considered a copy-control or
encryption system. Am I missing something? Maybe
this ought to be a 2-person project?

The code does look easy enough to take apart, even
using plain objdump. I think I'd be doing so now if
I had one of the cameras. (What nerd could resist?)
The decompiler is a much cooler option though.
By using both x86_64 and powerpc, recovery of data
types should improve.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.087 / U:3.124 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site