"Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 13.5 Mhz, 1920 x 1080 progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size
Radium
Here is my hypothetical scenario:
A two-hour movie is made using the finest video recording equipment
availabe today. The movie is recorded in digital uncompressed RGB
format, with a sample rate of 13.5 Mhz, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan
image resolution, and a color-depth of 32-bit. After this movie is
recorded, its format is changed from uncompressed digital RGB to "Real
WMV".
"Real WMV" is described in the following threads:
The WMV now has a sample rate, color-depth, and image-resolution
exactly the same as what the RGB had. After this, the color-depth of
the WMV file is compressed SOOOO much that the file-size is only 1-bit!
However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
My question is, how would this WMV video look like after compression of
the color-depth?
How would this video look like? I imagine that the pictures and their
motions would be very clear [in terms of image-clarity] with no
skipping. The only artifacts would be those affecting the colors. These
artifacts would be very extreme because of the infinitisemly small
color resolution. Do I guess right?
Thanks,
Radium
Pete Fraser
news:1161462047....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> A two-hour movie is made using the finest video recording equipment
> availabe today. The movie is recorded in digital uncompressed RGB
> format, with a sample rate of 13.5 Mhz, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan
> image resolution, and a color-depth of 32-bit.
That would be about 5 frames / second. Is that really what you're after?
Each frame is about 2 MPixels active. Add a bit for blanking, and 13.5 MHz
gives you about 5 fps.
13.5 MHz is an appropriate sampling frequency for 480i or 576i.
Radium
What is then appropriate frequency for 1920 X 1080?
AFAIK all digital video has sample-rates of 13.5 Mhz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate#Video_systems
Unless, of course, you're talking about something else.
Frank
in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 13.5 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
13.5 MHz is the normal SD (standard definition) luminance video
sampling rate as per ITU-R BT.601.
HD (high definition) video systems typically use a 55.6875 MHz or
(more commonly) a 74.25 MHz luminance sampling rate.
The two chrominance components are usually sampled at one-half or
one-quarter (not good for keying) the luminance sampling frequency. In
other words, for every four luminance samples taken, only two (or one)
color samples are taken for each color component, hence notations such
as 4:2:2 and 4:1:1 (and 4:2:0). Sony's HDCAM SR format, however, is
capable of full 4:4:4 color sampling. (I know that you didn't ask
about chroma sampling rates, but I just thought I'd throw that in.)
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
Radium
Frank wrote:
> 13.5 MHz is the normal SD (standard definition) luminance video
> sampling rate as per ITU-R BT.601.
>
> HD (high definition) video systems typically use a 55.6875 MHz or
> (more commonly) a 74.25 MHz luminance sampling rate.
Okay this is getting frustrating and
confusing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob M in "Currently-Available Highest-Quality Linear PCM Video?" said
that the one and only sample-rate for video is 13.5
mhz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And now I am being told that there are even HIGHER sample
rates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
I WAS LOOKING FOR THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE USED IN DIGITAL VIDEO AND
DIDN'T FIND OUT WHAT IT WAS UNTIL *TOO
LATE*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
Radium
Radium wrote:
> I WAS LOOKING FOR THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE USED IN DIGITAL VIDEO AND
> DIDN'T FIND OUT WHAT IT WAS UNTIL *TOO
>LATE*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND I PROBABLY STILL HAVEN'T FOUND OUT THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE
CURRENTLY IN USE FOR DIGITAL
VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Martin Heffels
>
And there is 18MHz for SD 16:9, 74MHz for 720p, and 74MHZ-49MHz-55MHz for
1080i, but the highest I find is 148.50MHz for 1920x1080p @ 60Hz.
Hope that makes you happy now :-)
cheers
-martin-
--
Tim Williams
> F--k F--k . . . [ad nauseum]
It's about fucking time someone "fucked" him up :-D!
Tim
--
Two pieces of cheese the same size and shape are con-gruyere-ent.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
nec556
Radium ha escrito:
> Radium wrote:
>
> > I WAS LOOKING FOR THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE USED IN DIGITAL VIDEO AND
> > DIDN'T FIND OUT WHAT IT WAS UNTIL *TOO
> >LATE*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> AND I PROBABLY STILL HAVEN'T FOUND OUT THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE
> CURRENTLY IN USE FOR DIGITAL
> VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
> > F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
Please, don't cry. Read, learn and study and after that, make
questions. But don't cry me about your problems, solute them and if you
need help, ask. If you have a question, ask it, here or where you want,
but i only answer to people that acts, works and thinks as adult, don't
child that cry when encounter a problem.
Have you go to a library for consult books about this theme? Search in
Google/Altavista etc...? Search on IEEE transactions or similiar
publications? Have you ever read the netiquette FAQ? It's cited on
comp.compression FAQ (did you read it?).
Thanks.
Radium
Thanks for clearing this up. What is the maximum color-depth currently
used for 148.50MHz for 1920x1080p @ 60Hz? Is it 32-bit or 24-bit?
stra...@yahoo.com
To keep throwing more numbers at you, the FDT Nova telecine digitizes
the RGB channels to 12 bits and performs all the processing to 14
bits/channel in RGB. The final output is decimated to 10 bits each Y,
R-Y and B-Y. So its 36 bit to 42 bit to 30 bits.
Bob M did NOT say 13.5 MHz was the one and only sample rate for digital
video, just the rate for 601 standard. You don't listen to what you're
told.
To FURTHER keep you confused, D2 video was sampled in composite at
14.318180 MHz (4x subcarrier) along with many composite DTBCs. The
Ampex TBC-800 sampled at 10.738635 MHz also in composite.
SO, don't get too hung up on the numbers. There are good engineering
reasons to use what _you_ determine to less than 'best', always for
what is POSSIBLE to build and sell (meaning make money to stay in
business), not some pie in the sky 480 bit, 10 million by 6 million
pixel 1000 frame/second drivel. Engineers have imagination -- a dang
sight better than you can imagine BUT they also know what is fantasy
and what is possible.
GG
Frank
in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 13.5 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
Aside from IEEE (which I do recommend, along with ACM), may I also
suggest that it's possible to purchase standards from sources such as
SMPTE and ISO.
Bob Myers
>
> Bob M in "Currently-Available Highest-Quality Linear PCM Video?" said
> that the one and only sample-rate for video is 13.5
> mhz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
No, I didn't. You asked what the common sample rate
was for digital video, and I told that ONE common sample
rate was, as you have again been told here, the CCIR-601
standard rate of 13.5 MHz, used for digitizing STANDARD-
DEFINITION video. It's not the only rate used for such things,
but it's currently one of the most common SD rates and there's
no significant quality difference among them for that purpose.
In that same thread, we then got into the notion of "pixel rates,"
but you never seemed to catch on to the fact that the pixel
rate IS the sample rate in digital video. (Pixel rate is a bit
more generic term, since not all pixels arise from the sampling
of analog video - some, as in computer graphics, are simply
synthesized as "digital" entities right from the start.)
Please take this next bit as it's intended - to be a bit of
hopefully helpful criticism. You are spending far too much
time asking unrelated questions, and not spending enough
actually trying to understand the answers you're being given.
This is why many people, including at times myself, believe
that what you're actually doing here is trolling. If that's the
case, you won't get anything from THIS, either - but on the
chance that it's not, please learn from this.
Bob M.
Bob Myers
> AND I PROBABLY STILL HAVEN'T FOUND OUT THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE
> CURRENTLY IN USE FOR DIGITAL
> VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Understand the following, and you will understand it all:
The highest sample rate in use for "digital video," if you
use the broad definition of that phrase to include ALL digitally
connected displays, is simply the pixel rate for the highest
pixel format/refresh rate combination currently in use.
Your use of the term "digital video," however, has caused
a number of us to assume that you're talking about "television"
or "entertainment" video - and in that context, there's a very
limited set of standard formats and rates.
Bob M.
James Beck
gluc...@excite.com says...
One of the first things you need to do is NOT use wikipedia for anything
other than chicken and dumpling recipes.
Richard Crowley
> One of the first things you need to do is NOT use wikipedia for anything
> other than chicken and dumpling recipes.
I'd suspect that you would get the same warning about recipes
from Wikipedia from the cooking forums!
James Beck
Of that I have no doubt.
"Fact" by popular vote seems a bit 1984ish to me.
Jim