Almost the answer there.

You are NOT getting full resolution.
You are getting the cropped format
resolution in terms of the level of
detail rendered. What you get the
"fullness" of is the original MP count.
This is well worth having in terms of
tonal transitions and less pixelation
on close viewing or large prints.

So you DON'T get the full MP count
detail-wise, but you do get the full
MP count pixelation-wise. Camera FW
extrapolates the "lost pixels" and fills
in with new ones.

.

I know of no other camera that behaves in exactly that fashion. However, I do know
of many cameras that take good pictures without unnecessary complexity, and that are
sold based on their image quality, not gimmicks and buzzwords.

I'm glad that the E-MIX camera worked for you on that day, with that scene. However,
it proves nothing.

So you are repeating an advertising claim,. Thank you for admitting it. Well,
if you can't trust corporate advertising, what can you trust?

VW says its cars have "farfegnugen". I admit: I don't know what"farfegnugen" means--
but then, I don't use the word. (And VW admitted lying to the US EPA about it's
light diesel truck's emissions, and in a court settlement agreed to set up a $2.7 billion
mitigation trust fund. So much for corporate integrity.)

Before you use a buzzword like "AI", you might want to find out the defintion--
if there is one. If there isn't, or if it's extremely vague or not really relevant to
photography, then you might to avoid using the term.

As it happens, there is no rigorous definition for "intelligence". So "artificial
intelligence" is undefinable. The term used to be used informally for research
into machine learning, but now it's become an advertising buzzword and a staple
of TV sci-fi (you know, like "warp drive").

Does the E-MIX also have a warp drive?

Warp drives and AI belong to fiction, but automation is real -- and it's limitations are
well-known. So the the relevant questions are: does one undrestand it's limitations?
And what's plan B when it fails to work?

We've all seen AF and AE fail. For example, if Program Mode fails to get the exposure
you want, you could try AP or SP. If that still doesn't work, you can add exposure
compensation. If you're still not getting what you want, there's manual mode.

Many photographers understand exopsure well enough to guess why a particular mode
failed to give the expected result. . But very few photographers understand AF, and nobody
understands "AI"--because it's just a buzzword.

Moreover, nobody understands any secret, proprietary algorithms except the guy who
wrote the code. And very often programammers try to implement a well-known
algorithm (some from Donald Knuth's books, say) and don't get it quite right. Complex
code is a real pain-in-the-assets.

Bottom line: photography isn't about automation--it's about control. Cameras are a tool.
And lke any tool, the user needs to understand how it works (including it's limitaitons)
and needs to control it.