"Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 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 148.50 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:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...
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.
After this, the WMV video is then converted back to uncompressed RGB
[I'll call this the "2nd RGB"]. The 2nd RGB has the same sample-rate,
image format ["resolution"], and color-depth as the 1st RGB. However,
the WMV truncation of the color-depth would obviously show up in the
2nd RGB because the 2nd RGB previously was WMV.
My question is, how would this 2nd RGB video look like after the above
processes?
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 when the 2nd RGB was in its
compressed WMV format, it was of such infinitisemly small color
resolution. Do I guess right?
Thanks,
Radium
P.S. Why not use this WMV for video-conferencing or for online video
viewing? There are many who watch their movies by downloading them from
a website.
stra...@yahoo.com
> Hi:
>
> 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 148.50 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:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...
Links to nowhere - similar to explaining things to you.
> 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.
Lose that bit and the whole movie is gone. Wow.
> After this, the WMV video is then converted back to uncompressed RGB
> [I'll call this the "2nd RGB"]. The 2nd RGB has the same
sample-rate,
> image format ["resolution"], and color-depth as the 1st RGB.
However,
> the WMV truncation of the color-depth would obviously show up in the
> 2nd RGB because the 2nd RGB previously was WMV.
>
> My question is, how would this 2nd RGB video look like after the
above
> processes?
If the bit were a '1', you'd see 2 hours of white screen. Are you
capable of devining what a '0' would be?
> 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 when the 2nd RGB was in its
> compressed WMV format, it was of such infinitisemly small color
> resolution. Do I guess right?
as usual, NO
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>
> P.S. Why not use this WMV for video-conferencing or for online video
> viewing? There are many who watch their movies by downloading them
from
> a website.
Gee, I wonder.........
GG
Radium
stra...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > 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 148.50 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:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...
>
> Links to nowhere - similar to explaining things to you.
Sorry. Here are the links where I describe "real WMV":
Lionel
>Hi:
>
>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 148.50 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:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...
>
>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!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bzzzt! Error!
>However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
>length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
No, not possible.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Radium
> >length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
>
> No, not possible.
Why not? A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
bit-rate lower than its sample rate.
Tom P.
Why not? Because when you use compression you have to compress
something. You can't use compression and have everything be the same.
Oh, and as for the initial question, it's impossible. You cannot
compress any amount of data smaller than 4 bytes. Look up the wmv
spec. Even if the picture was a blank screen it would take more than 4
bytes.
Or are you asking if you compress all the information out of a signal
will that affect the signal? Um, yes. That's what you are doing.
Tom P.
Martin Heffels
>You can't use compression and have everything be the same.
So you mean the files I compress with WinRAR are not the same anymore?
cheers
-martin-
oh, forgot a big wink up there :-))
--
Lionel
>Lionel wrote:
>> On 22 Oct 2006 18:49:51 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
>> >However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
>> >length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
>>
>> No, not possible.
>
>Why not?
Information theory proves it impossible.
> A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
>uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
>necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
>bit-rate lower than its sample rate.
Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
stra...@yahoo.com
Lionel wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
>
> >Lionel wrote:
> >> On 22 Oct 2006 18:49:51 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
> >> >However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
> >> >length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
> >>
> >> No, not possible.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Information theory proves it impossible.
>
> > A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
> >uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
> >necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
> >bit-rate lower than its sample rate.
>
> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Be nice. 'Radium' is in the end phase of decaying into 'lead'........
GG
Phil Carmody
> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.
Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Lionel
<thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
>...
>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>
>1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.
>
>Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!
So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
you're using the same decompressor each time. ;)
Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.
;)
snork...@gmail.com
> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
> --
> W
I was going to start a business selling single bit movies - it seems
like a natural, the download times are pretty short.
But for some reason, after working on it a long time, I was only able
to put two movies into my inventory. My investors said that I wasn't
going to be able to capture first mover advantage in the
single-bit-movie business with just two movies, so we backed off and
shut the plan down.
However, I haven't given up yet, I think I may be able to do better
with two-bit movies. I'm working on the compression algorithm right
now, and we'll see if I can get a larger inventory.
|
| Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
|
Michael A. Terrell
Hollywood has been in the two bit movie business for over 50 years.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Eeyore
Radium wrote:
> Sorry. Here are the links where I describe "real WMV":
Why isn't the group science.for.completely-off-their-heads.barking-mad.lunatics there ?
Graham
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hollywood has been in the two bit movie business for over 50 years.
Really? They can bring out zer0-bit movies, because the current crop of
movies isn't a bit interesting at all.
;-)
-m-
--
Lionel
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> opined:
>
>
>Radium wrote:
>
>> Sorry. Here are the links where I describe "real WMV":
>
>Why isn't the group science.for.completely-off-their-heads.barking-mad.lunatics there ?
Damn, I don't have that one on this news server.
On the bright side, it does have alt.usenet.kooks, where Mr Radium's
quest for UberVideoCompression would be just as on-topic. ;)
Michael A. Terrell
As long as they don't destroy those '50s and '60s Sci Fi films. They
are so bad that I could watch them all day long. :)
Gene E. Bloch
> On 24 Oct 2006 10:15:51 +0300, Phil Carmody
> <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> opined:
>
>> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>>> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined: ...
>>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>>
>> 1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.
>>
>> Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!
>
> So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
> maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
> compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
> you're using the same decompressor each time. ;)
> Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.
> ;)
Excellent point...
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As long as they don't destroy those '50s and '60s Sci Fi films. They
>are so bad that I could watch them all day long. :)
Well, that 1969 sci-fi movie about a landing on the moon is missing...
:-)
--
Phil Carmody
Oi! It was /I/ who made the excellent point, it's just that
no-one bloody understood it! Slap-wristies if you needed the
explanation.
Gene E. Bloch
> Gene E. Bloch <spam...@nobody.invalid> writes:
>> On 10/24/2006, Lionel posted this:
>>> On 24 Oct 2006 10:15:51 +0300, Phil Carmody
>>> <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> opined:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>>>>> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
>>>>> ... Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>>>>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>>>> 1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.
>>>> Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!
>>>
>>> So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
>>> maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
>>> compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
>>> you're using the same decompressor each time. ;)
>>> Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.
>>> ;)
>>
>> Excellent point...
>
> Oi! It was /I/ who made the excellent point, it's just that
> no-one bloody understood it! Slap-wristies if you needed the
> explanation.
>
> Phil
True about one bit ==> two movies; I was remarking on the *size of the
decompressor*, something I should have realized without having to be
coached... [1]
This (and newsgroups in general, of course) is a community effort, and
sometimes it's hard to give credit properly...
Sorry: I'll try to do better in the future,
Gino
[1] I've often remarked on the high degree in redundancy in music. For
instance, on my hearing the first chord, the whole Eroica symphony pops
into my mind (well, tries to, at least). This is an excellent example
of the size needed for the decompressor program.
Lionel
<thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> opined:
>Gene E. Bloch <spam...@nobody.invalid> writes:
>> On 10/24/2006, Lionel posted this:
>> > On 24 Oct 2006 10:15:51 +0300, Phil Carmody
>> > <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> opined:
>> >
>> >> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>> >>> On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined: ...
>> >>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>> >>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>> >> 1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.
>> >> Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!
>> >
>> > So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
>> > maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
>> > compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
>> > you're using the same decompressor each time. ;)
>> > Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.
>> > ;)
>>
>> Excellent point...
>
>Oi! It was /I/ who made the excellent point, it's just that
>no-one bloody understood it! Slap-wristies if you needed the
>explanation.
<grin>
I made my comment mostly to let you know that I'd gotten your joke.
(And to take the piss out of our loonie Mr "who the hell is Shannon?"
Radium.)
Radium
Lionel wrote:
>
> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
I need software for that. Where can I find such software?
Radium
Tom P. wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Lionel wrote:
> > > On 22 Oct 2006 18:49:51 -0700, "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> opined:
> > > >However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
> > > >length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.
> > >
> > > No, not possible.
> >
> > Why not? A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
> > uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
> > necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
> > bit-rate lower than its sample rate.
>
> Why not? Because when you use compression you have to compress
> something. You can't use compression and have everything be the same.
> Oh, and as for the initial question, it's impossible. You cannot
> compress any amount of data smaller than 4 bytes. Look up the wmv
> spec. Even if the picture was a blank screen it would take more than 4
> bytes.
Does the 4-byte limit also apply to WMA audio?
Martin Heffels
>I need software for that. Where can I find such software?
I can point you to MS Visual-C++ or Intel's C++ compiler :-))
-m-
--
Lionel
>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>
>I need software for that.
Well, duh.
> Where can I find such software?
You'll need to write it yourself. Sadly, all the programmers who write
audio or video CODECs for a living believe that it's impossible to
compress randomly selected, high resolution, 2 hour long movies down
to a single bit, & then successfully decompress them back into
something recognisable as the original movie.
BTW, in the unlikely case that you're not actually a troll[0], & are
simply clueless about mathematics & physics, there is an intuitive,
non-mathematical way to understand why it's impossible to compress a
bunch of movies down to files that each contain a single bit, & then
recover the movies from those files:
(1) Imagine that you own DVDs of your 10 favourite movies, & you wish
to compress them down to 10 files, each containing a single bit.
(2) By definition; a single bit can only be '1' or '0'. If it can be
anything else, it's no longer a 'bit', & calling it a bit is simply
mistaken.
(3) Your hypothetical uber-compressor can only generate one of two
possible compressed files: One that contains a '1', or one that
contains
a '0'.
Problem #1: Suppose you uber-compress your favourite DVD ('The
Matrix') down to a single bit: '1'. Next, you want to compress your
next favourite movie ('Capricorn One'). Now here's where things start
to get weird, because no matter what data - or even what movie - is on
that DVD, we know that the new compressed file *must* end up being a
'0', because the compressed version of 'The Matrix' is '1', & if our
uber-compressor outputs a '1' for *both movies*, it is *impossible*
for our uber-decompressor to 'know' which movie to play!
So, it logically follows that 'Capricorn One" *must* compress to file
containing only a '0'. However, the fact that you could've picked *any
movie* (other than 'Matrix') from your shelf, & it *must* compress to
a '0', should tell you that something is seriously wrong with the
logic underlying our uber-compressor.
Now, ignoring that fo the sake of argument, let's pretend that by
some god-like miracle of software engineering, your uber-compressor
manages to play 'The Matrix' for you when you give it the '1', & plays
'Capricorn One' when it is given the '0' file. This leads us to:
Problem #2: What happens when you try to compress a *third* movie (eg;
'Final Fantasy')? The answer is that, by definition, our
uber-compressor *cannot* produce a single-bit file that will
decompress to 'Final Fantasy', because there are only two possible
single-bit files: '0' & '1', & our uber-compressor has already used
both of them! So, no matter what bit it outputs, it'll be identical to
either 'The Matrix' or 'Capricorn One', so the decompressor cannot
possibly play back the correct movie, because it has no way of telling
the difference between the uber-compressed version of 'Final Fantasy'
& the uber-compressed movie file which has the same contents.
And *that* is why there is no such thing as a video
compression/decompression system that can compress more than two
abitrarily-chosen movies down to a single bit.
This same logic can be extended to determine all sorts of useful
things about the limits on storing data efficiently, or how much data
you can squeeze through a communications medium in a given time.
'Information Theory' is the name for this field,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory>
which was pioneered by Claude Shannon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon>
HTH!
[0] And even if this explanation is wasted on you, it may help others
who aren't familiar with information theory, or who (like myself) find
the mathematical explanations & proofs difficult to grasp.
Bob Myers
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161748849.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You'd have to write it. Best of luck with that, too.
Bob M.
James Beck
nospam...@address.invalid says...
DanR
I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit movie
must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
Frank
in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
"DanR" <dh...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the system uses a five-bit Baudot code, so
there are only four wasted bits. The bandwidth savings are truly
astonishing.
--
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/
Jukka Aho
> I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit
> movie must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
That's called an 8-pack of movies.
--
znark
Michael A. Terrell
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:54:46 GMT, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
> progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
> "DanR" <dh...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Bob Myers wrote:
> >> "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1161748849.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>> Lionel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
> >>>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
> >>>
> >>> I need software for that. Where can I find such software?
> >>
> >> You'd have to write it. Best of luck with that, too.
> >>
> >> Bob M.
> >
> >I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit movie
> >must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
>
> My understanding is that the system uses a five-bit Baudot code, so
> there are only four wasted bits. The bandwidth savings are truly
> astonishing.
Baudot? Are you using TDD or an old news wire TTY?
Michael A. Terrell
>
> I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit movie
> must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
It wasn't even a two bit idea, to start with! ;-)
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DanR wrote:
>>
>> I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit movie
>> must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
>
>
>
> It wasn't even a two bit idea, to start with! ;-)
Nah, with a clever decompressor, you can assume that every bit in the byte
is a seperate entity. So you can compress even more. How smart is mr
Radium!
;-)
--
Frank
in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
>Frank wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:54:46 GMT, in 'rec.video.desktop',
>> in article <Re: "Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 Mhz, 1920 x 1080
>> progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size>,
>> "DanR" <dh...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Myers wrote:
>> >> "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1161748849.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Lionel wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
>> >>>> somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>> >>>
>> >>> I need software for that. Where can I find such software?
>> >>
>> >> You'd have to write it. Best of luck with that, too.
>> >>
>> >> Bob M.
>> >
>> >I can just imagine how disappointed Mr. Radium will be when his 1bit movie
>> >must live inside an entire byte. What a waste of bits.
>>
>> My understanding is that the system uses a five-bit Baudot code, so
>> there are only four wasted bits. The bandwidth savings are truly
>> astonishing.
>
>
> Baudot? Are you using TDD or an old news wire TTY?
Actually, I have used an ASR33 (with paper tape, too). Attached to a
DEC PDP-11 for control purposes.
Michael A. Terrell
Wasn't that an ASCII machine? I used a KSR33 on a Control Data
computer that was ASCII.