Discussion of targeting technologies - Page 3 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Discussion of targeting technologies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-06-2015, 12:02 PM
lololol
 
qsxcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,245
Rep: 366 (Unique: 152)
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"?

too busy to check forums as regularly
pm me if i forget to respond
qsxcv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-06-2015, 12:16 PM
Audiophile
 
Scharfschutzen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 330
Rep: 15 (Unique: 12)
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?

Snow
(18 items)
Waifu PC
(16 items)
Vytru NUC
(12 items)
CPU
Intel Core i5 7600k
Motherboard
ASRock b250m PRO4
GPU
ASUS Radeon R390 Strix
RAM
16 GB GeIL EVO Potenza
Hard Drive
PC401 NVMe SK Hynix 512GB
Hard Drive
Intel SSD 240GB
Hard Drive
Western Digital HDD 2.5" 500GB
Power Supply
Corsair CM750m
Cooling
Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO
Case
InWin 303 White
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
ASUS MG279Q
Keyboard
CMStorm Trigger Z
Mouse
Razer Abyssus V2
Mousepad
Razer Sphex V2
Audio
iLoud Micro Monitor
Audio
AKG Q701
Audio
Schiit Fulla 2
CPU
Intel Core i3 6300
Motherboard
Gigabyte GA-H110M-A
GPU
XFX R7 360
RAM
16 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport
Hard Drive
Mushkin Chronos 120GB
Hard Drive
Western Digital Caviar Green 800GB
Power Supply
Corsair GS600 v2
Cooling
Coolermaster V8
Case
Coolermaster Cosmos Origin Edition
Operating System
Windows 10
Monitor
Yamakasi Catleap Q270
Keyboard
Corsair K65 RGB
Mouse
Coolermaster Mastermouse MM52
Mouse
Razer Goliathus Control Large
Audio
Xonar DG
Audio
Klipsch Promedia 4.1 + Custom Subwoofer
CPU
Intel Core i5-5250U
Motherboard
Intel NUC5i5RYK
GPU
Intel HD6000
RAM
Crucial 4GB DDR3-1600
Hard Drive
Transcend TS64GMTS800 64GB
Monitor
Vizio E42-C2
Keyboard
Logitech K360
Mouse
Logitech Performance MX
Audio
Magnepan MMG
Audio
Emotiva UPA-200
Audio
Schiit Fulla 2
Audio
BIC Formula F12 (x2)
▲ hide details ▲
Scharfschutzen is offline  
post #23 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-06-2015, 12:23 PM
lololol
 
qsxcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,245
Rep: 366 (Unique: 152)
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

too busy to check forums as regularly
pm me if i forget to respond
qsxcv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 01:15 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Above8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Russia, Moscow
Posts: 424
Rep: 40 (Unique: 34)
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.
Above8 is offline  
post #25 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 05:48 PM
lololol
 
qsxcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,245
Rep: 366 (Unique: 152)
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
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.

too busy to check forums as regularly
pm me if i forget to respond
qsxcv is offline  
post #26 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 06:05 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Abacus1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 177
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
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."
Abacus1234 is offline  
post #27 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 06:54 PM
lololol
 
qsxcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,245
Rep: 366 (Unique: 152)
it's kinda weird/unfortunate that everyone started disregarding him after Ino posted some pretty neutral words from the logitech guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacus1234 View Post

a bunch of pseudo sciency crap
while some of the stuff is exaggerated, at least it's way better than r0ach's garbage

too busy to check forums as regularly
pm me if i forget to respond
qsxcv is offline  
post #28 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 07:41 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Abacus1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 177
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

it's kinda weird/unfortunate that everyone started disregarding him after Ino posted some pretty neutral words from the logitech guy
while some of the stuff is exaggerated, at least it's way better than r0ach's garbage

Everything is better than Roach.
Abacus1234 is offline  
post #29 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 07:50 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
popups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,483
Rep: 142 (Unique: 79)
Quote:
Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post

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

Eew.... That's a really bad characteristic to have considering that slow speed movements are some of the most vital movements in FPS. You will have to lower cursor speed...
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.

Ball and TwinEye mice are theoretically more accurate because they track X and Y separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

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.

How many pro CS:GO players are currently supported by Razer? Currently it doesn't seem like it's as many as before.
popups is offline  
post #30 of 130 (permalink) Old 07-07-2015, 08:11 PM
lololol
 
qsxcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,245
Rep: 366 (Unique: 152)
Quote:
Originally Posted by popups View Post

Eew.... That's a really bad characteristic to have considering that slow speed movements are some of the most vital movements in FPS. You will have to lower cursor speed...
depends on which game obviously, but yea for cs it may be an issue if you're a high sens (like 20cm/360) player.
and it effectively serves as some mild angle snapping (because when you draw a horizontal line the vertical speed is tiny)

well that paper was from quite a few years ago and presumably they've improved in the newer sensors, but it's kind of a fundamental limitation of interferometry

too busy to check forums as regularly
pm me if i forget to respond
qsxcv is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off