"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...
Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.
The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information.
Photoelectric converter == photoconductor == photodiode.
It's all the same thing. I haven't forged
) or misinterpreted anything. As for "sub-pixel"...again, the same thing
. It's all a photodiode. It's a concept were talking about here...an anode and a cathode plugged into a bit of silicon that has the ability to convert incident photons to free electrical charge. That's what a sub-pixel in Canon's patent is! I've always used the term photodiode (because that's what it is, if you look at the symbol on an electrical diagram, and there are two other patents in Japanese that have actual electrical diagrams, it's a light-sensitive diode
). Some of the other patents actually clearly show two "photoelectric converters" per pixel in multiple diagrams. If you had read my earlier comments about SPATIAL RESOLUTION, you would understand WHY it's the same thing, and why it doesn't matter if there are two, four, or N number of them contained within a single "pixel" (a multi-layered structure containing one or more photodiodes, a CFA, and a microlens).
It clearly states TWO sub-pixels for each pixel, not four as you've been claiming all along.
Good. At least we've have established that these are sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
But I guess that also makes Jrista's hundreds of misleading claims about photodiodes all false.
It seems that he's the one who's been continuously embarrassing himself - together with the small
gang lining up in support of an imposter.
Me? I just made a speculation that instead of two sub-pixels, Canon is using four.
That's not the least embarrassing.
LOL. I'm having so much fun.
Hmm. Hundreds, eh? Care to, um, enumerate all several hundred for us? I'd...really like to see that.
You've somehow equated the term "sub-pixel" with "pixel". Why use a different term, sub-pixel, if it's the same thing? Sub-pixel == photodiode == photoconductor == photoelectric converter. Conceptually
, in the context of CIS, these things are identical. They are all represented by the same symbol in an electrical circuit diagram (a photodiode:
, in the context of CIS, a pixel and a photodiode are not the same thing. This is a pixel:
As it so happens, this is a pixel with two photodiodes (the N-type silicon dropped into the P-type substrate.) I really don't care what terms are used, ultimately in the end, the term used to describe the thing isn't what matters, it's the concept the term encapsulates that matters...sup-pixel, photodiode, photoelectric converter...pick your poison. A (full, discrete, atomic) pixel and a photodiode are different conceptual things. You can mince words all you want, but now your obfuscating and dancing around the original point: You
have claimed, in multiple threads for a good while now, that not only does Canon have QPAF, but that somehow QPAF/DPAF somehow leads, probably with ML (although I don't remember if you actually said that exactly) to better resolution. THOSE are the points at debate. Try all you want to play me for a fool, it isn't going to phase me, I don't care. Be as happy as you want that you discovered the term "sub-pixel" in the patent. To me, it's the same freakin thing, the same exact concept...a photodiode. I don't equate sub-pixel with pixel, as one is a complex multi-layered structure, one is a bit of doped silicon with an anode and a cathode tacked onto the ends that is a part of a pixel.
From a spatial resolution standpoint, DPAF doesn't bring anything to the table. You would need to redesign THE PIXEL, that complex multilayered thing built into the silicon substrate, to actually make DPAF, QPAF, or any number of bits to a diced up piece of silicon, become something more than just being separate photodiodes/photoconductors/photoelectric-converters/sub-pixels under one microlens/color filter into something that actually can actually meaningfully separate spatial frequencies, resolve them independently, and which ultimately represents more detail in a two-dimensional spatial frequency (in other words, an image.)
Anyway...I'd like to see the list of hundreds
of things I've made misleading claims about. That's hundreds
, plural. Get to work, bub!
As for me, as Don has said, this conversation has just gone way off the tracks and has become pointless. I'm not embarrassed by anything I've said here, I'm confident in my knowledge and assessments, but the conversation itself is becoming embarrassing. It's clear your not interested in any of the facts, this has devolved into an "I'm right your wrong" spitfest. I'm not interested in that. I proved my points, I debunked the myth I wanted to debunk, and not even for your sake...for everyone else's sake (although I don't think they care any longer): There is no QPAF. DPAF does not enhance resolution, and likely never will (not without PIXEL redesign). You've retreated, and contracted your argument into the most basic, minimally attackable position possible: I was just speculating and having fun!
Fine by me. I'm clearly not alone in my assessments, others back me up, so I'm happy to exit the conversation here. I don't like to keep debating once the locals get fed up with the conversation.