You can imagine an different SLT arrangement using this Canon sensor or similar. The fixed mirror can provide an OVF, leaving the main sensor for AF. With a bit of trickery you could possibly even have a hybrid VF like Fuji and switch between OVF/EVF if you like.
As for the potential resolution if the sub-pixels were available, it could and would lead to an increase in resolution potential in whatever direction the pixels are split in. This was a question I saw raised, are the pixels all split in the same direction? Implicitly it may only be sensitive in one direction. Or could/would they have split the pixels in a mix of two axis? The biggest problem would be any debayer routine will be seriously difficult to deal with. Probably worse than the Fuji pattern...
Edit: I just had pointed out elsewhere the split sensors are under the microlens, thus further muddling up what possible info can be extracted from it.
As for the potential resolution if the sub-pixels were available, it could and would lead to an increase in resolution potential in whatever direction the pixels are split in. This was a question I saw raised, are the pixels all split in the same direction? Implicitly it may only be sensitive in one direction. Or could/would they have split the pixels in a mix of two axis? The biggest problem would be any debayer routine will be seriously difficult to deal with. Probably worse than the Fuji pattern...
Edit: I just had pointed out elsewhere the split sensors are under the microlens, thus further muddling up what possible info can be extracted from it.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.