From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267923AbUH3Mxr (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:53:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267940AbUH3Mxr (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:53:47 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:32394 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267923AbUH3Mxn (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:53:43 -0400 Subject: Re: reverse engineering pwcx From: Albert Cahalan To: Paul Jakma Cc: Helge Hafting , Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list , rlrevell@joe-job.com, clemtaylor@comcast.net, qg@biodome.org, rogers@isi.edu In-Reply-To: References: <1093709838.434.6797.camel@cube> <20040829210436.GA24350@hh.idb.hist.no> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1093870332.434.6983.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 30 Aug 2004 08:52:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 03:42, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Helge Hafting wrote: > > > There's no need for faith or speculation here. > > Put the chip under a microscope and count the pixels, > > or rather measure their size and estimate their number. > > The lavarnd guy did and counted 160x120: > > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10091208 Unless he explains a bit better, there's no reason to assume he counted correctly. There may be a larger pattern that was counted by mistake. For example, there may be 160x120 red-sensing sub-pixels. He could have counted only that. Also, there is more than one type of sensor that can be fitted to these webcam chips. They may vary.