Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: reverse engineering pwcx | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:11:28 -0400 |
| |
On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 12:56, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 12:25, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 12:17, Albert Cahalan wrote: > >> [somebody] > > > > > The LavaRnd guys examined the pixels on the actual > > > > CCD chip. It's 160x120. The 'decompression' is > > > > just interpolation. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Right, as someone else pointed out, this is wrong. > > > > How do you account for the Slashdot poster's assertion that it's > > physically impossible to cram 640 x 480 worth of data down a USB 1.1 > > pipe? > > 640x480 uncompressed 24-bit RGB? It doesn't matter. > > The suggestion of a 4x4 JPEG-like transform seems > pretty reasonable. I'd like to see that whitepaper. >
This still can't be called 'True 640 x 480' by any reasonable standard. Philips' marketing claims exactly this.
So far I have not seen any evididence to refute QuantumG's original assertion that the reason everyone in the know is being so tight-lipped is that releasing source code would prove Philips and/or Logitech guilty of false advertising.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |