Clearvid is pretty darn sweet!

[Thomas Smet]

DSE I'm not worried about it at all and it doesn't keep me up at night at all. I was just curious. I had mentioned that I was slightly curious and thats all. I find nothing wrong with that at all.

I started this thread in support of clearvid and hope to keep it that way.

[Ron Evans]

My last comment!!! In the Sony illustration there are 5 horizontal lines in a diamond pattern before DSP processing with 9 real sensor pixels. After processing the created pixels in the gaps there are STILL ONLY 5 horizontal lines now with 13 pixels that are square with created pixels all only added to the horizontal. The array started with 960x1080 and now has 1920x1080. Could there be other options for the DSP--- of course. But this is Sony's way of explaining what they have done.

Ron Evans

[Thomas Smet]

Dude where the heck are you seeing these lines? Can you not see that both the vertical and horizontal are increased in the same way. You are explaining to me how clearvid works by interpolating the in between pixels and I already know that part. I would not have started this thread talking about how great it is if I didn't have an idea of how it worked. you are not explaining why you think this only works in the horizontal and not the vertical. Clearly the image on SONY's website be it an illustration or not is all we have to go on and it shows equal precision in both directions. Because of the way the corners sit and make up the in between pixels there is no way you can boost horizontal without boosting vertical as well because they sit together. When you create the new horizontal pixel in between two real pixels you automatically also create the vertical pixel as well because the same pixel becomes a vertical pixel for another row.

Look at that same image made up of 13 new pixels. Isn't it true that the vertical is also more precise then it was before? Therefore you now have 1920x2160 new points based on if this illustration is real or not. I'm just going off what is in the pictures. You really seem to be pulling a lot of info from these few images that I am just not seeing. I'm not even sure why you keep going on. DSE has even said not to take these images as 100% accurate which I knew they were not. This thread is mostly on what is great about Clearvid and it would be nice if we could get back to that now.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

It's an illustration.

1) Correct. A Japanese engineer writes up something with a diagram which is given to marketing who gives it to the art dept.

You know these are rough illustration because the fill-factor of the photodiodes is not shown!

Taking these drawings literally will give you nightmares. Start with a deep understanding of CMOS -- then flip the elements 45-degrees.

2) Contrary to many statements, one cannot read-out pixels randomly -- it would screw-up exposure. Rows are captured from the top to the bottom. It is, however, possible to OUTPUT a window from the CAPTURED pixels and only read them out.

3) Yes -- you can capture 2M from 1M if you do it right.

4) Yes -- you can create a 16:9 chip array of 960x1080 "diamonds" if you don't take the drawings of pretty diamonds too literally.

5) Remember this rule -- interpolation cannot create resolution!

[Ron Evans]

Thomas. Again this is a simplistic response and the way I understand what has been described by Sony who may have used some marketing license with the description!!! If you look at the images there is no increase in number of rows in the matrix after creation of new pixels. There are extra pixels being placed but only in the horizontal line, the row in the matrix. There aren't any extra horizontal rows created. You are looking at the column pixels, before and after. That is not the number of horizontal rows, which remains the same for both images passing through the centers of the original pixels horizontally. The number of rows of pixels remains the same (1080) but there are now more pixels in each row. These extra pixels are placed on rows that already existed. There were 1080 rows before and 1080 after. However you are correct in that the pixels for any particular column have increased. Because before processing there were 960 zig zag columns 1080 high. Think of it as 1920 vertical columns that only see a row pixel every other row. There are 1080 vertical pixels but in the 1920 column there would only be 540 without the DSP created pixel. Another way to look at it is to say the imager has 1080 rows and 1920 columns populated by real and created pixels. The extra pixels fill in the needed vertical and horizontal pixels to fill the matrix. Because of the 45deg arrangement the 1080 column pixels are not in one column but zig zag. When the horizontal is changed from 960 to 1920 the extra vertical pixels are needed to maintain the 1080 rows not create more vertical resolution . This is where I think Sony has used some license and where you have your question. This is your point? I took it as I think Sony would like us to think as being 1080 rows with created pixels in the horizontal direction. Rows remain the same, horizontal pixels doubled by DSP. Centers of pixels define rows and centers and between define columns. I understand your confusion just draw it out on some paper.

Ron Evans