Overclock.net banner

Discussion of targeting technologies

17K views 129 replies 28 participants last post by  wareya  
#1 ·
Discussion of targeting technologies

What is a good mouse?
What is tracking?
Which sensor is good?
Which is difference between sensors?

Some people choose mouse only by amount CPI, thinking that higher means better. Some people are sure, that only max tracking speed matters. Some people think, that sensors must be only LED based. Some people say, that sensor doesn't matter at all, shape is the only priority. Some even strongly believe than gamepads are better than mice.

Let's look at this from different perspective and try to investigate, how mouse sensors work.

First of all, accuracy theoretically can't be higher than 100%. Sensor can't reproduce hand movement "better" than it was. All it can do is try to track it. Technology can't have strengths, only flaws and limitations. So let's compare flaws and limitations to choose a technology which has less of them. Let's look, which one which gives best accuracy with least limitations.

Ball mice

Ball mouse use ball, two perpendicular chopper wheels and light sensors to detect movement. When ball rolls, chopper wheels roll as well, opening and closing way to beams of light. By this sensors measure amount of movement. When there is enough cohesion between ball and wheels, sensor detects movements perfectly accurate. Resolution may be changed by changing chopper wheels.


Limitations of this type of sensors are related with mechanics: friction and inertia. If there is not enough cohesion, ball and chopper wheels may slip. With movements not along one axis, cohesion may be lower, ball may slip, so X or/and Y sensitivity may be lower. If movement speed is too high, ball may jump, and movement won't be tracked.

Tracking surface should be stable/hard and should give enough friction for ball to roll. Mouse and tracking surface should always be clean to have stable friction.

If these problems could be eliminated or reduced, we could have a simple and accurate mouse.
ICS (Avago/Pixart Image correlation sensors)

MLT04, A3090, S3988, AM010, PMW3310, PMW3366, A9500, A9800 and most others modern mouse sensors are image correlation sensors (ICS).

ICS include source of light (LED or laser) and array of photodiodes. Source of light illumines tracking surface, light reflected from surface goes to photodiodes.


Photodiodes make small photos of tracking surface and compare them. Framerate is usually variable, 1 000 - 12 000 FPS. Photodiode array usually is 30x30 pixels, which means photos as well are 30x30 pixels. First ICS had photodiode array of 19x19 pixels (MLT04), largest photodiode array is 36x36 pixels (PMW3366).



This is a photo of A3090 sensor photodiode array.


Judging by photo of A3090 photodiode array, photodiodes cover about 5% of surface. On this picture photodiodes are highlighted with green, spacing with red.


Knowing it's size (about 1.5 mm) you can count it's optical/native resolution. Optical resolution of modern ICS is about 400-800 DPI. More detailed calculations (higher CPI) can only be achieved by guess-work (interpolation/upscaling). This is an example of upscaling.


With each frame ICS receives frequency response characteristic of brightness of light, projected from tracking surface area to photodiode array. Then ICS correlates frequency response characteristic of frames. Basically, we are dealing with frequency analysis.

Photodiode measures average level of brightness from all light, projected from tracking surface area to photodiode surface. One photodiode signal is equal to one sample per frame. This is an example of which part of information sensor can see per frame.

If part of light projected from tracking surface is not in focus, light will be scattered not linearly, but depending on optics.

It will have negative effect on accuracy of sample. By removing focus, projected image will change in unpredictable way. In this case, received information will look like this.

This is difference.

If image is not in focus, part of information will be smoothed, but high frequency details influence won't be eliminated. High frequency details will have different influence depending on position.

Photo diodes can't receive all information about surface. As each photodiode reports one average result per sample, we can't know light allocation inside photodiode surface and light allocation between photodiodes. If formula for the allocation is inharmonic, we can't accurately re-create surface information. In this case we don't know what was inside photodiodes and between photodiodes, and we can't re-create this information. It results misinterpretations like spatial aliasing, Moiré pattern and high frequency noise.
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90
Which results noise, unpredictability and inaccuracy of result.

Aforesaid means that:
- if frequency response characteristic of surface is inharmonic, it can't be measured accurately
- if harmonic frequency response characteristic of surface has higher frequency, than 2 pixel steps, it can't be measured accurately
- if harmonic frequency response characteristic of surface has lower frequency, than pixel array, it can't be measured accurately

Also, photodiodes form vertical and horizontal lines. Basically, it means that ICS not only have given optical resolution, but even optical direction. At different angles pixel density is different. Different directions have different sample rate.

Angle - Samples surface on chosen direction
0.00° - 22.45%
45.00° - 12.64%
26.57° - 7.96%
18.43° - 5.81%
33.69° - 4.68%
14.04° - 4.59%
11.31° - 3.80%
36.87° - 3.31%
21.8° - 3.28%
30.96° - 2.88%
38.66° - 2.56%
...
5.71° - 2.05%
...
1.91° - 0.72%

At higher speed, same distance on surface will be represented with lesser amount of frames. This will result lesser signal/noise ratio, more errors and worse tracking quality. In other words, higher movement speed result lesser accuracy. It results unstable tracking and speed errors at higher speeds.

If tracking surface has difference in height, in other words, is not completely flat, not every level of height may be in focus, which will result lower tracking accuracy.

Also, every level of height will have different projection on photodiode array, which will lead to distortion between frames and lower tracking accuracy. This means that tracking surface for ICS should be as flat as possible.

LED based sensors look at surface strictly from above, and laser based sensors look at surface at different angle. Optical resolution of LED based sensors depend on distance to tracking surface. With moving closer to surface (for example: pressing mouse button or increasing pressure on cloth mouse pad) optical resolution will increase, which will increase mouse sensitivity for about 5-10%.


Laser based ICS with such movement will report cursor movement in the direction of laser beam. Also, laser based sensor will track vertical movements.

It means, that to work properly, any ICS should be used on hard surface.

As sensor is optical and it measures texture surface, tracking quality strongly depends on characteristics of tracking surface. First of all, surface must contain information, that sensor could read, so surface needs to have contrast texture. To make it possible to re-create texture by samples, formula for the light allocation must be harmonic, with minimal frequency of 2 native pixels and maximal frequency of whole pixel array. This is an example of such texture.



This texture may be re-create from samples with bi-cubic filtering. Such surface will provide accurate tracking even at high resolution (about 5x hardware resolution without jitter).



Sadly, on any other surface with inharmonic texture and relief tracking accuracy will be very low, much lower than offer any other technology, specified in this text.

Among other things, ICS have specific flaw related with noticeable lowering of accuracy with sensor rotation. It's related with arrangement of photodiodes in pixel array.
PTE (Philips TwinEye Doppler shift sensors)

Doppler shift effect is the change in frequency of a wave for an observer moving relative to its source. So basically, it means that if source of light moves, phase of reflected light will change.


In way similar to sonar, TwinEye emits laser beam to the surface and measures phase of reflected light.

Sensor receives analog information, which is then digitized by built in ADC.


This approach doesn't have fixed resolution (DPI), information about speed and time may be divided in any amount of CPI. PTE measures fractions of reflected laser beam wave, it means accuracy is only limited by wavelength of laser (857 nm or 1 / 30 000 inch), quality of digitizing and characteristic of tracking surface.

There is no spacing between pixels (laser beam has no spacing in it), which means even smallest movements may be tracked. Errors may be only at level of measurement of phase of reflected laser and digitizing (not at level of optical resolution).

Also, PTE measures speed instead of distance, so it will receive same amount of information about tracking surface not depending on speed. It means PTE tracks slow and fast movements equally accurate.

There are two lasers, one measures movement along X-axis and second along Y-axis. They are completely independent, it eliminates angle errors.


Both lasers are directed to surface at angle of 60 degrees. It means they measure not only horizontal mouse movements, but also vertical. So, when you raise the mouse, or soft tracking surface bends while you press buttons, sensor may report movement. It's also knows as Z-axis bug.

This design has another weakness. There is only one laser beam which is tracking motion, so if there is anything on its way, sensor won't be able to measure anything. For example if there is a hair under the sensor, it's likely that one axis won't track at all.

Accuracy doesn't depend on direction and speed. However, official data sheet shows how PTE's sensitivity depends on movement speed:

Pretty stable at most speeds, but at extremely low speed (0.1 mm/s) sensitivity is lower for some reason. Seems to be ADC or math error. Maybe buffer is too short or there is not enough digits after dot. It's not a problem if you use like 400-800 CPI in Windows, but when you switch to 4 000 CPI, it becomes noticeable.

0.1 mm/s is about:
1.57 count/sec at 400 CPI
3.15 count/sec at 800 CPI
6.30 count/sec at 1 600 CPI
12.60 count/sec at 3 200 CPI

To avoid Z-axis bug surface should be hard. For stable tracking surface should be as flat and even as possible. Also, it should reflect and scatter light, or be matte in other words.

With proper surface and cleanness, this sensor may provide decent accuracy. Slight speed errors are there, though they are predictable, and I guess in theory they may be compensated/improved in next sensor models.
Graphics tablets

Graphics tablet differ in principle of operation, but main idea is same. Tablet is divided on zones. Each zone corresponds one pixel on screen. With pen/mouse movement, new location is calculated and cursor on screen moves to corresponding location.

This approach leaves no place for angle errors and speed errors. Resulted cursor location will always be predictable.

It's the only technology that works properly even on soft surface.


If graphics tablets would be adopted for games, it could give better results than anything else.
Flaws comparison
1. Tracking on soft surface.

Ball.
Friction is too low and unstable.

LED based ICS.
1. Tracking quality is worse than on hard surface with proper texture. Soft surface texture is unstable and distorts under pressure.
2. Under vertical pressure surface bends, sensor moves closer to surface, optical resolution and sensitivity increase. So any fast movement with pressure will have (about 5-10%) higher optical resolution/DPI/sensitivity.

Laser based ICS.
1. Tracking quality is worse than on hard surface with proper texture. Soft surface texture is unstable and distorts under pressure.
2. Under vertical pressure, cursor moves along laser direction.

PTE.
1. Tracking quality is worse than on proper hard surface. Soft surface is unstable and distorts under pressure.
2. Under vertical pressure, cursor moves along lasers direction. Amount of cursor displacement may be bigger than in case of laser based ICS.

Graphics tablet.
May be used with cloth mouse pad.

2. Displacement of mouse

Ball.
When mouse lifts off, cursor moves in direction of chopper wheels.
After displacement, cursor moves back roughly to previous location.

ICS.
After displacement, cursor slightly moves, usually in direction of LED light.
Amount of cursor displacement depends on LOD.

Laser based ICS.
When mouse lifts off, cursor moves along laser direction.
After displacement, cursor moves back roughly to previous location.
Amount of cursor displacement depends on LOD.

PTE.
When mouse lifts off, cursor moves along lasers direction.
After displacement, cursor moves back.
In earlier versions of PTE amount of cursor displacement were dependent of lifting and lowering speeds, which might usually result noticeable cursor displacements.
In newer versions of PTE cursor moves back roughly to previous location, amount of cursor displacement mainly depends on LOD.

Graphics tablet.
After mouse/pen displacement, cursor moves to location, corresponding to new mouse/pen location.
Software related problems in first-person shooters.

3. Speed related accuracy

Ball.
Can't track fast movements.

ICS.
Higher movement speed result lesser is tracking quality.

PTE.
Tracking quality doesn't depend on movement speed, however, extremely slow movements have less CPI.

Graphics tablet.
Tracking quality doesn't depend on movement speed.

4. Small movements tracking

Ball.
Accurate tracking.

ICS.
Unpredictable errors compared with size of optical pixels. Depends on movement direction.

PTE.
Predictable, however, extremely slow movements have less CPI.

Graphics tablet.
Accurate tracking.

5. Angle error

Ball.
Predictable. Related with friction and cohesion.

ICS.
High unpredictable errors. Depend on movement direction.

PTE
Result of X and Y errors.

Graphics tablet.
Accurate tracking.

6. High sensitivity

Ball.
May be achieved by changing chopper wheels.

ICS.
Interpolation. More CPI on box usually means more smoothing, angle snapping and other path correcting algorithms. This is needed to hide noise at higher CPI.
Using CPI higher than native DPI not recommended.

PTE
Calculates from speed and time info. CPI may be set to any value.

Graphics tablet.
Depends on type of graphics tablet.
Conclusion
Sadly, ball mice don't receive evolution now, in spite of their high accuracy and low cost.

But the least accurate ICS received most expansion, and most users suffer from their inaccuracy and unpredictability. Majority of modern day users haven't even seen and tried other technologies.

PTE got bad reputation from incompetent users for so called Z-axis bug. As result, sensor is not that popular, and most of mice with it have path correction directed to reduce vertical tracking on cloth. But these algorithms degrade tracking quality. There are only a few mice with PTE and without such algorithms.

Graphics tablets worth much more than average mice. But at this moment it's the most promising technology. But it doesn't get enough evolution because of it's high price and specific reputation.

---

If you have thoughts, suggestions or critique, please leave them in responses. OP will be corrected if it's needed. I'd like to keep it as objective and accurate as possible.

Special thanks to @qsxcv and @daniel0731ex for given information and corrections.
 
#2 ·
Very informative thread, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Above8 View Post

Discussion of targeting technologiesPTE got bad reputation from incompetent users for so called Z-axis bug. As result, sensor is not that popular, and most of mice with it have path correction directed to reduce vertical tracking on cloth. But these algorithms degrade tracking quality. There are only a few mice with PTE and without such algorithms.
Could you name a few? Would the Razer Spectre be one of them?

Also, have you tried using a graphics tablet in an FPS? What happens if you do? I imagine there are still other disadvantages such as polling rate or input lag.

Why do you not consider lower cpi on slow movements with PTE sensors a limiting factor? Wouldn't ICS ideally be better if tracking could be made very stable up to unrealistic movement speeds?
 
#3 ·
Quote:
To work properly, any ICS must be used on hard surface.

Such sensor has no theoretical potential to track hand movement accurately.
these vague statements are your opinion
Quote:
One of the main problems of modern ICS is spacing between photodiodes. Sensor can't see all the surface.
this is only true if the image projected by the lens is in very good focus, and if there is significant high frequency detail

here are real images of what an ics sensor (3366, led) sees
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

BBEAgNX.png

slightly shifted:
csw9Yx6.png
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crizzl View Post

Why do you keep posting about this "optical sucks PTE rocks" thing? Do you have some sort of hidden agenda?
No he's not, just read the info because he's explaining the whole concept of what a mouse does so instead of you deriding him because he didn't become THE chosen fanboy of your type of sensor.

Geez you clowns think you know how a mouse works, then you start abusing others who step up here to explain it in detail, which some should so that their concepts can be understood by the many that visit this place.

Instead of kicking someone constantly for an opposing view maybe you should try and understand were he is coming from.
 
#10 ·
very interesting - will now look at my mouse in a different light - i still like the idea of not having to clear the fluff out of the old ball mice
biggrin.gif


and yeah! hava rep for my 1st detailed mouse read
thumb.gif
 
#11 ·
http://www.photonics.philips.com/pdf/VCSEL-based_miniature_laser-Doppler_interferometer.pdf
Quote:
Pretty stable at most speeds, but at extremely low speed (0.1 mm/s) sensitivity is lower for some reason. Seems to be ADC or math error.
it's not an error. it's a limitation of the technology

the laser cavity feedback frequency is proportional to the movement speed, and the photodiode measures this signal in the laser cavity.
because pte requires the modulation scheme (see pdf above, fig2) to determine directions, it cannot accurately measure frequencies in the laser cavity below the modulation frequency.

the modulation frequency must be reasonably high in order to provide smooth and responsive tracking, because the update/sampling rate for the system is limited by it.

now let's estimate at what movement speed does the feedback frequency become problematic.

suppose a modulation frequency of 1000hz. the feedback frequency becomes problematic around this frequency.
using eq1 from the pdf
1000hz = [2 * cos(phi) / wavelength] * speed

wavelength=857nm=0.857micron
assume phi=45deg which is reasonable.

speed = 0.6mm/s

which is the same order of magnitude as the actual "low speed perfect control speed" of ~0.3mm/s in fig6 of the pdf
 
#12 ·
Why would a "hard" or more uniform mousepad/surface be better than a finely woven cloth mousepad for incoherent light based sensors (3310, 3988, 3366, and others) regarding tracking other than surface depression?

The contrast of light bouncing off the levels of cloth might allow for more distinguishing features than a more uniform surface, such as a "hard" mousepad?
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrick View Post

No he's not, just read the info because he's explaining the whole concept of what a mouse does so instead of you deriding him because he didn't become THE chosen fanboy of your type of sensor.

Geez you clowns think you know how a mouse works, then you start abusing others who step up here to explain it in detail, which some should so that their concepts can be understood by the many that visit this place.

Instead of kicking someone constantly for an opposing view maybe you should try and understand were he is coming from.
What's up with the insults? Was that necessary?

I don't mind him explaining it it's actually kind of interesting but I've seen him explain it several times before around here so why keep on explaining it? He's also biased towards a certain type of sensors and if he's not explaining why it's better he's pushing for people to buy PTE sensor mice. I guess it's just another one of these users that knows what's best for everyone and is very vocal about it.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crizzl View Post

He's also biased towards a certain type of sensors and if he's not explaining why it's better he's pushing for people to buy PTE sensor mice. I guess it's just another one of these users that knows what's best for everyone and is very vocal about it.
He/she is doing alright considering English may be his/her second language here, due to their current location.

He/she also likes ball-mice hence not strictly a PTE only type of guy/girl (the net never discloses sex of person). Suspect as usual they are trying to expand their knowledge of sensors which is always good on any public forum.

I too get tired of the same agenda being preached and pushed upon everyone here and it's always good to have people questioning the status-quo. Always ask questions because it makes sense to continually chip away at the foundations of so-called monumental truths, as we currently know them.

Also please pardon my speech when I respond to people here on OCN because I work at a place that generally responds with fists and four letter words on a daily basis
devil-smiley-019.gif
.
 
#15 ·
The problem is he thinks he knows the limitations, but he has no idea what problems engineer's have been able to minimize and which ones they haven't. And when we have an engineer working for for a mouse company tell us the pros and cons, above ignores him and calls him biased.

There is nothing wrong with above thinking pte is better. What is wrong is him misleading people into thinking he knows the current bottlenecks of each sensor type from a technical point of view, he isn't an engineer, he doesn't know what is and isn't holding them back. And we can't disprove him because we aren't engineer's either.

If he wants to compare the tracking performance in real world tests and claim pte is better, cool, all power to him. But when he implies he knows the technical limitations of each sensor type, he is a liar and a phony. If he wants to argue that pte is better he should come up with tests to prove it and post results and then others can attempt the same tests and post their results. And then people can debate what those test results prove.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirx View Post

whatever. even if PTE is indeed more accurate (from what he's describing), still most gamers prefer plain optical image correlation sensors.
You have no way of knowing that. The more recent PTE sensors are only in a few mice and those choices might have deal breakers related to the shape, weight or other details. I wonder if the Razer sponsored teams will try the new PTE Mamba or continue to stick with their ics Deathadders.
 
#18 ·
I always was and still am a big fan of the PLN 2031. I always thougt the PLN 2031 in the Lachesis 1Gen and the Orochi 1Gen are really good implementations.
I know the lift off problem but it doesn't bother me. But I understand that is a big deal for others.

Nice to see some positive posts about the PTE Sensors. Maybe it is better than it's reputation.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDno1 View Post

Could you name a few? Would the Razer Spectre be one of them?
Razer Lachesis 3G - no path correction (out of production)
Razer Spectre - no path correction (out of production)
Razer Naga 2014 - no path correction
Mad Catz M. M. O. TE - Sensor dampening may be disabled in software
Mad Catz R. A. T. TE - Sensor dampening may be disabled in software
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDno1 View Post

Also, have you tried using a graphics tablet in an FPS? What happens if you do? I imagine there are still other disadvantages such as polling rate or input lag.
Depends on graphics tablet model and drivers. With older drivers my Wacom Intuos5 used tablet zone like rotation angles map, so if you need to rotate from 359 degrees to 1 degree, you need to place mouse to opposite side of tablet. With newer drivers it works in FPS completely different, more like analog sticks, if mouse is in the middle, character stands still, but if you place mouse in any other place, charter will rotate in this direction with fixed speed. This device was never adopted for FPS games by manufacturer, but I'm sure it could be fixed relatively easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDno1 View Post

Why do you not consider lower cpi on slow movements with PTE sensors a limiting factor??
Sensitivity of slow movements is lower, but sensor still can track slow movements. It's definitely a flaw. I'll think how to explain it more correctly and try to correct OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDno1 View Post

Wouldn't ICS ideally be better if tracking could be made very stable up to unrealistic movement speeds?
ICS technology has a lot of different unfixable flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

these vague statements are your opinion
I don't think that dynamic resolution and vertical tracking may be considered as proper behavior. Maybe I should change "To work properly, any ICS must be used on hard surface." To "This means, that any ICS should be used on hard surface to be able to work properly."
If sensor can't see receive 100% information about tracking surface, it has no theoretical potential to track movement 100% accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

this is only true if the image projected by the lens is in very good focus, and if there is significant high frequency detail
You can't increase amount of information by removing focus. You can make initial image unfocused, blury and smooth, by this you'll hide details/noise but at the same time you will make information (and tracking) less accurate. It won't change main point.

Less contrast, but main point is still the same. If I'll reduce contrast in my examples result will be similiar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

here are real images of what an ics sensor (3366, led) sees
If they are real examples of sensor signal, I'd like to place them in OP.
By the way, which surface is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmashTV View Post

Cool, another "optical is wholly inaccurate" thread in disguise.
There is nothing to disguise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crizzl View Post

Why do you keep posting about this "optical sucks PTE rocks" thing? Do you have some sort of hidden agenda?
Well, if you look closely, it's more about: "ICS sucks, PTE sucks a less, graphics tablets could rock if they had better realization".

Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

well it's clear that he's extremely biased against ics sensors.
There is more information about ICS than about other sensors, because even though their operating principle could look simple and obvious, there are a lot of unobvious details that aren't usually noted.

By the way, it's too difficult to be a human and to be unbiased simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

quite of bit of stuff is vague/inaccurate/misleading
If you see inaccuracy, please let me know, I'd like to eliminate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

it's not an error. it's a limitation of the technology
Thank you for correction, I'll correct OP soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4dd View Post

Why would a "hard" or more uniform mousepad/surface be better than a finely woven cloth mousepad for incoherent light based sensors (3310, 3988, 3366, and others) regarding tracking other than surface depression?

The contrast of light bouncing off the levels of cloth might allow for more distinguishing features than a more uniform surface, such as a "hard" mousepad?
All my mice in all my tests performed better on Manticor, than on QCK. I guess cloth has very rough texture. A lot of smaller and larger details. Small details may result high frequency noise. Larger details may cast shadows.

By the way, I've ordered digital microscope, so I'll have a chance to look at it "closer" soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crizzl View Post

He's also biased towards a certain type of sensors and if he's not explaining why it's better he's pushing for people to buy PTE sensor mice.
If I'll tell you that jet is faster than helicopter, will it mean that I push you to buy a jet?
If I'll explain difference between LCD and OLED, will it mean that I push you to buy OLED?
If I'll tell you that OLED has better contrast and input lag than any LCD, will it be biased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crizzl View Post

I guess it's just another one of these users that knows what's best for everyone and is very vocal about it.
If I explain difference between technologies, it doesn't mean I say what's best for you.
Graphics tablets have best/perfect accuracy, does it mean they will be better for everyone? Especially in their current state. Especially with current price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrick View Post

He/she
He

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atavax View Post

The problem is he thinks he knows the limitations
I don't think I know, I only show facts, logics and conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atavax View Post

And when we have an engineer working for for a mouse company tell us the pros and cons, above ignores him and calls him biased.
How can be "an engineer working for a mouse company" not biased?
What do you prefer to believe, logics or groundless statements of that engineer?
Which of my statements are groundless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atavax View Post

There is nothing wrong with above thinking pte is better. What is wrong is him misleading people into thinking he knows the current bottlenecks of each sensor type from a technical point of view, he isn't an engineer, he doesn't know what is and isn't holding them back. And we can't disprove him because we aren't engineer's either.

If he wants to compare the tracking performance in real world tests and claim pte is better, cool, all power to him. But when he implies he knows the technical limitations of each sensor type, he is a liar and a phony. If he wants to argue that pte is better he should come up with tests to prove it and post results and then others can attempt the same tests and post their results. And then people can debate what those test results prove.
I have no special equipment, so I don't know which reproducible tests I can make. But I can speak about theory. Test results without theoretical grounding are useless anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirx View Post

whatever. even if PTE is indeed more accurate (from what he's describing), still most gamers prefer plain optical image correlation sensors.
It's called stagnation. If everyone will only do what majority does, there will be no progress, we'll get stuck with it, as we already did with ICS. By doing something, only because someone else does it, you won't be able to move forward.

Well, maybe you don't like PTE for some reason, ok. But it doesn't remove mechanical problems of ball mice and doesn't make ICS accurate. If all sensors are bad, we need to improve graphics tablets and stuff like that. But not ICS. ICS "progress" is going nowhere. It'll never be accurate, because it can't be accurate even in theory.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Above8 View Post

I don't think I know, I only show facts, logics and conclusions.
How can be "an engineer working for a mouse company" not biased?
What do you prefer to believe, logics or groundless statements of that engineer?
Which of my statements are groundless?
I have no special equipment, so I don't know which reproducible tests I can make. But I can speak about theory. Test results without theoretical grounding are useless anyway.
It's called stagnation. If everyone will only do what majority does, there will be no progress, we'll get stuck with it, as we already did with ICS. By doing something, only because someone else does it, you won't be able to move forward.
In a previous thread, it has been shown that many of your "facts" we're false.

Every human is biased, but you discounted his superior knowledge because his conclusions didn't match your interpretation of data from a paper. You aren't seeking the truth, you are seeking people to confirm your theory. Anyone that disagrees with you, you can selectively ignore and called biased, like Morrier. Or you can ignore context, like when you claimed Ino said pte was more accurate when he only said that at high dpi it performs better. A paper written by the sole manufacturer of pte with all its patents that would be useless if if pte is proven inferior is somehow less biased than the engineer that has experience designing mice with both kinds of sensors because the engineer doesn't confirm the view you are looking to get confirmed and the paper does. The only progress you're interested in is furthering your religion built on pte. Not in improving mouse sensor performance.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Above8 View Post

You can't increase amount of information by removing focus. You can make initial image unfocused, blury and smooth, by this you'll hide details/noise but at the same time you will make information (and tracking) less accurate. It won't change main point.
Quote:
Photo diodes cover only small part of surface so sensor can't receive all information about surface.
if the optics were perfect, the non 100% fill factor of the pixels would be somewhat problematic as high frequency detail would add a lot of noise.

however
1. you greatly exaggerate how small the fill factor of the pixels are
2. optics are not perfect and even if the fill factor is 1%, the optics would give significant anti-aliasing.

images like
fc2f31dc_Frame0.png

are completely unrealistic in terms of the signal to noise ratio

think about what each pixel "sees". even if the pixel is 1micronx1micron, that doesn't mean that, (assuming 1x lens magnification, it will only receive light from a 1micronx1micron area on the mousepad
Quote:
If sensor can't see receive 100% information about tracking surface, it has no theoretical potential to track movement 100% accurately.
again, this obviously correct statement is completely useless.

for these things there is no 100%. if an ics sensor gets "95% information" about a surface and tracks "90% accurately, does that make it worse than a pte sensor which gets "99% information" and tracks "80% accurately"?
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atavax View Post

The only progress you're interested in is furthering your religion built on pte. Not in improving mouse sensor performance.
Are you stating (or agreeing with some individuals) that religion is false?
 
#23 ·
graphics tablets have two glaring problems
1. response is surely worse than ics sensors which process thousands of frames/second
2. for any type of mouse, the reported motion is relative to the orientation of the mouse. e.g. if you turn the mouse 180, moving the mouse left will move the cursor right. afaik this is not true for graphics tablets, which only report motion relative to the tablet. you can argue which is superior, but the thing is that pretty much everyone is accustomed to the regular behavior
Quote:
During movement strictly along one axis (green line) pixels will "see" about 22% of this axis with each frame.
i, and probably everyone here, have absolutely no idea what this means.
an axis is an axis. what's 22% of an axis?
Quote:
After displacement, cursor slightly moves, usually in direction of LED light.
this is absolutely not true unless you're using the tape trick or something (in which case it probably isn't relevant anyway)

the direction the cursor moves in during liftoff only depends on the relative positioning of the lens and the pixel array. i believe for the vast majority of led illuminated ics sensors, the center of the pixel array is directly above the center of the lens
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atavax View Post

In a previous thread, it has been shown that many of your "facts" we're false.

Every human is biased, but you discounted his superior knowledge because his conclusions didn't match your interpretation of data from a paper. You aren't seeking the truth, you are seeking people to confirm your theory. Anyone that disagrees with you, you can selectively ignore and called biased, like Morrier. Or you can ignore context, like when you claimed Ino said pte was more accurate when he only said that at high dpi it performs better. A paper written by the sole manufacturer of pte with all its patents that would be useless if if pte is proven inferior is somehow less biased than the engineer that has experience designing mice with both kinds of sensors because the engineer doesn't confirm the view you are looking to get confirmed and the paper does. The only progress you're interested in is furthering your religion built on pte. Not in improving mouse sensor performance.
If you are too lazy to think for you self, and ready to blindly trust a chosen "trusted person" and "his superior knowledge", it's your choice. But it doesn't mean that you need to slander other people and blame them for lies they didn't make. Groundless slander and worship to "trusted persons" is a little bit off topic in "Discussion of targeting technologies" thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

graphics tablets have two glaring problems
1. response is surely worse than ics sensors which process thousands of frames/second
Seems like graphics tablets just need better MCUs and more power than a single USB. It could reduce lag. Early models had to be connected to wall outlet. If both tablet and mouse will be powered with cable, it shouldn't be a problem.

Anyway lag only matters with other things being equal. Ball mice has lesser lag than ICS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

2. for any type of mouse, the reported motion is relative to the orientation of the mouse. e.g. if you turn the mouse 180, moving the mouse left will move the cursor right. afaik this is not true for graphics tablets, which only report motion relative to the tablet. you can argue which is superior, but the thing is that pretty much everyone is accustomed to the regular behavior
It's a matter of habbit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

i, and probably everyone here, have absolutely no idea what this means.
an axis is an axis. what's 22% of an axis?
I mean which part of selected trajectory is covered by photodiodes. Pixels/spacing ratio. Green line has much higher pixels/spacing ratio, than orange.

Removing focus won't help a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

this is absolutely not true unless you're using the tape trick or something (in which case it probably isn't relevant anyway)

the direction the cursor moves in during liftoff only depends on the relative positioning of the lens and the pixel array. i believe for the vast majority of led illuminated ics sensors, the center of the pixel array is directly above the center of the lens
Try lifting and landing mouse a lot of times. Sensor may consider lighting movement as mouse movement. Lifting and landing don't always have same trajectory, they may not compensate each other. Fact of cursor movement is here, cursor isn't standing still. You need to find right height, and cursor will ride.

If you'll know how, you'll be able to use even Lachesis 3G without cursor displacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

if the optics were perfect, the non 100% fill factor of the pixels would be somewhat problematic as high frequency detail would add a lot of noise.
I'll try to show it on different example.
X here is sensor axis, and Y is brightness.
Green lines - photodiodes.
Cyan line - what sensor see as result.
It's an example of focused signal.

It's an example of unfocused signal.

Comparison.


Photodiode has surface. Its signal is average of all brightness levels within its surface. No matter which texture is there, it'll only report one number. Photodiodes will never tell you, what was between them. Photodiode size only affects amount of tracking surface signal it averages, but it never will be able to show details. Even if photodiodes would cover 100% of surface, they wouldn't be able to give 100% of information about it. You'll only get amount of selections of average level of brightness.

There are peaks. Their influence depends on place. If peak is in the middle of photodiode, its influence will be maximal. It it's between 4 pixels, its influence will be minimal. Signal on surface is always different, it has different size, shape, brightness. Different noise frequency. It's unpredictable.

You can't get all information and you can't predict it. You can never be 100% sure about amount of movement. There will always room for guessing and doubting. There will always be errors compared with pixel steps. There will always be random. Having such information you have no chance to detect movement accurately.

Look at your own frame examples and try to tell exact amount of movement. Your examples are focused well, have a lot of noise, and it's impossible to accurately count movement from therm. I tried.


By the way, try to explain jitter, which may be met exclusively in ICS. How else can you explain it, except of inability to see details which causes random noise?

Maybe, if they were a completely different ICS with completely different surface, they could track well. Maybe if mouse could discern colors, you could use them on mouse pad with gradient marking like this.

It could accurately track movement by difference in color. Even 2 photodiodes would be enough.

Have you compared ICS with anything else you self? I mean connecting both devices to PC at the same time, swapping them and trying to find difference. This should be enough to make you doubt, that ICS may be accurate.

There is nothing personal, I didn't mean to break your dreams about reverse engineering of 3366. But maybe you expect too much of it.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Anyway lag only matters with other things being equal. Ball mice has lesser lag than ICS.
if you're an artist... maybe. but would you use a graphics tablet with 50ms latency over an ics mouse for gaming? you have to consider everything holistically... for mice sensors there's no attribute which is absolutely more or less important than others.
Quote:
I mean which part of selected trajectory is covered by photodiodes. Pixels/spacing ratio. Green line has much higher pixels/spacing ratio, than orange.
this sort of logic only applies when the detail is like an extremely sharp spike e.g. delta function, and if the effective fill factor of the pixels is like 10%
neither of which are true in practice
Quote:
this is a reasonable illustration of the actual focus of the system.

again, the images in the op like this one
fc2f31dc_Frame0.png

, which i think you made by downscaling the previous image using nearest neighbor, are completely unrealistically noisy. same thing with the cyan line in your drawing.
well noisy is the wrong word.. but anyway no mouse's pixel array has that amount of aliasing.
Quote:
Look at your own frame examples and try to tell exact amount of movement. Your examples are focused well, have a lot of noise, and it's impossible to accurately count movement from therm. I tried.
second image is displaced two pixels upwards and ~0.3pixels to the left.

i don't think the focus is as good as it could be. after all, i just mounted the sensor onto another mouse's bottom shell which had no mouse feet, and propped up one end of the shell with a small screwdriver...
ill take pictures using the g502 shell some time later
Quote:
By the way, try to explain jitter, which may be met exclusively in ICS. How else can you explain it, except of inability to see details which causes random noise?
led ics mice don't have jitter at their hardware resolutions. idk and i dont really care about laser ics mice. wmo doesn't jitter at 400dpi, 3366 doesn't jitter at ~1000dpi, etc...
once you increase dpi beyond 2-3x scaling or so, well you start to get jitter due to interpolation/whatever unless there is smoothing. if this is what you're talking about well then yea of course the sensors don't have much information to accurately track at that high resolutions. but at their hardware resolutions, they are perfectly fine and statements like this
Quote:
Such sensor has no theoretical potential to track hand movement accurately.
in your op are silly.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Above8 View Post

If you are too lazy to think for you self, and ready to blindly trust a chosen "trusted person" and "his superior knowledge", it's your choice. But it doesn't mean that you need to slander other people and blame them for lies they didn't make. Groundless slander and worship to "trusted persons" is a little bit off topic in "Discussion of targeting technologies" thread.
Seems like graphics tablets just need better MCUs and more power than a single USB. It could reduce lag. Early models had to be connected to wall outlet. If both tablet and mouse will be powered with cable, it shouldn't be a problem.
Man, the arrogance and stupidity. No one accused you of anything there aren't good grounds for, and no one is worshiping anyone. And when someone comes into a thread which is a "Discussion of Targeting Technologies" with a bunch of pseudo sciency crap, I don't think calling you out on it is exactly "off topic."