From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267389AbUH1QeN (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:34:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267378AbUH1QcY (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:32:24 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:46497 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S267389AbUH1QZx (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:25:53 -0400 Subject: Re: reverse engineering pwcx From: Lee Revell To: Albert Cahalan Cc: linux-kernel mailing list , clemtaylor@comcast.net, qg@biodome.org, rogers@isi.edu In-Reply-To: <1093709838.434.6797.camel@cube> References: <1093709838.434.6797.camel@cube> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093710358.8611.22.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:25:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 12:17, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > 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? Lee