By definition, you can't interpolate a sample. A sample is a measured value.

What you can do, if and only if you have an exactly repeating signal triggering at the same point within a cycle, is change the delay between the trigger and sample, and repeat. In other words, sample at different times within the same signal (since it's exactly repeating), to build up samples in time, of that waveform, to whatever time resolution you want.

Of course, you're limited to any noise in the trigger, variation in the signal, etc.

This is how you can record light moving through your garage [1]!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4TdHrMi6do

▲

jacquesm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure if mkeeter's comment has been ninja edited but it says between samples, it doesn't say it is interpolating to generate new samples.

▲

nomel 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand, but that's my point, it's not interpolated!

The number he's referring to is in units of samples per second. It's not doing interpolation between samples, to achieve a high samples per second, because that's not possible, which is my point. Interpolation results in an imagined value, but samples are measured values.

It would be correct to say that the values between samples are interpolated, but the subject of interpolation isn't applicable for anything mentioned in this comment chain.

	▲	jacquesm 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah you are referring to the 'sps' bit. Ok, but I think the extra sentence is enough clarification of what they mean, even if they're wrong about what the device is doing. The only time these are interpolating is when they are visualizing, there is no point (hah) in storing interpolated data, you can generate that whenever you want.