It's not double resolution... It's double color data that has been shifted slightly. Each split pixel uses the same bayer layer. but what this does is create a higher sized file with more color data for the same resolution file. If you look at the specs the size didn't increase but the data dramatically did.
Isn't this sort of like Foveon tech? So what we'll end up with is a sharper image with better color and lower noise since each pixel probably cancels SOME noise out...
I'm uber excited to find out what exactly it does though!
Foveon is very different - instead of a colour filter array it has a stack of layers, sensitive to different wavelengths of light.
AFAIU Canon's DPAF sensors have double the resolution (i.e. twice the pixel density, horizonally) - in the sense that each pixel is actually two, and using Liveview AF it can use that data to achieve phase autofocus. Prior to these new 5D4 rumours, the pairs of pixels have always been read out as one for the purposes of taking an image. I assume each pair would be under the same colour in the filter.
I'm not sure I understand "a higher sized file with more color data for the same resolution file"?
re: MJPEG vs. more compressed files like H264/265
Is there a camp asking that Canon drop MJPEG?
I would assume that the pro h264 camp is asking for a smaller file size/more compressed OPTION.
EG: Please give me the option to shoot in a compressed jpeg file size for thousands of images on my 16GB card vs. shooting RAW for a few hundred shots.
People chose to forgo the RAW files superior image quality all the time, and though I shoot RAW, I would never want a DSLR that did not have the jpeg options we now have.
So I can see the desire/need for a more compressed file type, but don't see the argument against the option.
Actually I believe some of the opposition to MJPEG has come from the editing world; because the performance during editing is poor, and you need to go through an intermediate format. I'm not quite sure why that is (especially given the similarities internally with ProRes). Maybe it's just that software tools haven't been optimised for MJPEG, and therefore don't utilise hardware acceleration correctly.
If Canon had offered ProRes, I suspect people would have been very happy.
H264 is a slightly different kettle of fish; in that it's arguably a delivery format, rather than one better suited to editing.