Sorry don't understand your comment. Yes, of course it is desirable. Not sure where I said it was not.
Wasn't it determined that the reduced 'amp glow' 'hack' was a desirable feature for EAA? Was our conclusion about that somehow wrong?
It is not a hack per se but rather required modifying the control logic of the SoC. Not that complicated to do and no unique or patentable IP here.
Another very important point to note is that you can only apply this trick to the 224 because the SoC supports powering down certain blocks during exposure. The camera manufacturer can do nothing about Amp Glow if the SoC does not support it. Also this feature is available to all camera manufacturers who use the SoC. It is just control logic.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Well it was sort of by exclusion, since such was not included in the list you had previously. Anyway, from memory, people were told to send their cameras back to get the 'amp glow reduction' feature added, which implies a hardware element.
I would also think that the overall qc procedures and selection of electronic components could make a difference in robustness of a particular camera. Engineering a decent optical window and cooling would also be important.
Yes, this is hardware based. I thought I said that above. But note this is not a feature designed by the camera manufacturer. It needs to be supported by the SoC in the first place. Better mechanicals / design also helps. This is very simple control logic.
Absolutely, I agree with you that better mechanicals (optical window, QC, cooling) make a big difference. That is exactly what I said in my first post.