The Change To Megapixels
As I said in the introduction, the image captured by the camera is retransmitted to a sensor that can process a certain number of pixels like an ordinary camera can. The more there are, the more accurate the image will be, it stands to reason. Now, the talk so far has not been about sensor size. So Logitech has enlarged its sensor to obtain a more exact image of the environment. When the processing chip compares two images, it will have more information and be able to analyze the movement more precisely. So the 4.7 Megapixel figure that they mention corresponds to the number of images per second multiplied by the number of pixels making up the sensor. Logitech does explain that increasing the sensor size means that fewer images per second are captured, but, unfortunately, does not reveal the two figures in the white paper, no doubt because they fear that the new capture speed is a backward step which could harm the sensor brand image.
The Tale Of A Journalist Who Figured In Vain
But even if we had the figures, as we don't know the size of the Microsoft sensors, we would still have trouble drawing a conclusion. But we could not help trying to figure it out; it's in our genes. As Logitech says nothing about speed, we may assume it is no higher than the fastest (that is, Microsoft's) one of 6000 images per second. Let's suppose that it is 5500 for the MX optical engine. So you then divide the Logitech figure by this one to obtain the number of pixels the sensor analyzes. The sensor would then consist of 854 pixels or, in terms of surface area, about 29x29 pixels. Obviously this is only a guesstimate to elucidate the technology to some extent. I dug around the Agilent Technologies site and found that the sensors use CMOS technology like a basic camera and that the biggest sensor to date has 22x22 pixels with an analysis speed of 2300 images per second. So we worked it all out in reverse. The sensor has 484 pixels multiplied by 2300, which gives 1.1 Mpixels/s using Logitech's own calculating method. So we can get to work on the basis that the MX sensor is definitely more precise than any other to date. After working out these clever sums, I discovered on rereading Logitech's information that the sensor is 80% bigger than the next biggest on the market. So if we take our Agilent 22x22 as a starter, we get 30x30; they are always squared. And: voilà! We can calculate again, the other way around. 30x30 gives us a sensor of 900 pixels. So we now divide the 4.7 Mpixels by 900 and arrive at a speed of 5222 images per second. So there we have it, I had reached the limits of my mathematical abilities, but a 30x30 sensor and a speed of 5200 images per second sounded plausible.
Then an idea crossed my mind: suppose I called the Logitech mouse manager to see. I spoke to him for two minutes, explaining my problem with the figures and he replied straight off: 30x30 sensor, speed of 5250 images per second. So I didn't know whether to be pleased at having almost gotten it right or to kick myself for not asking earlier. Logitech made me feel a fool. They also have another interesting figure, which is the 40 inches per second maximum tracking speed. The MX is once more ahead, because older sensors were below 20.