My rules for digital video
Radium
Here are my rules for digital video:
1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
X 1080 pixels.
2. The only compression allowed is *real* WMV. No other compression
format is permitted.
3. In its uncompressed form, the video must have a color-depth of at
least 32-bit
4. If compression is used, then the sample-rate and the image-format of
the compressed and the uncompressed version of the video must be the
same.
5. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is
the color-depth. The sample-rate and image format must remain unchanged
Regards,
Radium
Edward
Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Here are my rules for digital video:
>
> 1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
> least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
> X 1080 pixels.
>
> 2. The only compression allowed is *real* WMV. No other compression
> format is permitted.
Why the fetish for Microsoft's video standard?
Did you read about the "viral" DRM? Apparently if you have a DRM-less
wma file and it ends up on Microsoft's crappy audio player, it comes
off with some sort of DRM and is unplayable after three days.
I wouldn't touch Microsoft's video standard.
Maybe for porn...
Radium
> Why the fetish for Microsoft's video standard?
I like the audio artifacts associated with the WMA format that I
described in the following thread:
So I assume that I would like the video equivalent of those artifacts
as well.
Edward
What is wrong with one of the ten thousand variants of mpeg?
h.264?
I dunno... I just think a proprietary format is a bad idea.
Radium
> What is wrong with one of the ten thousand variants of mpeg?
> h.264?
I don't like the artifacts associated with compression schemes other
than WMA and WMV. Its difficult for me to describe but I just don't
like them.
Edward
Interesting.
Bob Myers
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1163222445.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Here are my rules for digital video:
Unfortunately, reality doesn't care a bit what you think the "rules"
are.
> 1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
> least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
> X 1080 pixels.
Why that particular sample rate? Do you have any idea
what frame rate you want, and why that might be just a bit
more of a concern than the sample rate?
> 2. The only compression allowed is *real* WMV. No other compression
> format is permitted.
Why not? I seriously doubt that you're qualified to judge the
relative merits of various compression techniques.
> 3. In its uncompressed form, the video must have a color-depth of at
> least 32-bit
What do you mean? 10 bits of one color, and 11 of two others?
Which ones? RGB encoding? YCbCr? More than three
primaries? Linearly encoded? Assuming what gamma?
What color space and white point?
> 4. If compression is used, then the sample-rate and the image-format of
> the compressed and the uncompressed version of the video must be the
> same.
>
> 5. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is
> the color-depth. The sample-rate and image format must remain unchanged
And these two statements alone again show that you don't have even
the slightest understanding of how video compression works.
What DO you have against actually learning something here?
Bob M.
Bob Myers
And you have, of course, performed an exhaustive study of all
possible compression schemes? You also base this supposed preference
of yours on a completely unfounded assumption that because you
prefer the effects a given audio system has on the signal, you'll also
like the effects that are produced by a completely unrelated system
that happens to have a related name. THAT makes a lot of sense,
doesn't it?
Bob M.
John de Stigter
> Hi:
>
> Here are my rules for digital video:
>
> 1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
> least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
> X 1080 pixels.
Here are my rules for internet posting:
1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly differentiate between mhz
(millihertz) and Mhz (megahertz).
Regards,
John.
Michael A. Terrell
John, you can't teach an old troll new tricks. :(
--
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
Bob Myers wrote:
> "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > Here are my rules for digital video:
Bwahahahahahahah.
Hey Radium, ny newsserver's filtering your posts at source.
Graham
Eeyore
Bob Myers wrote:
> What DO you have against actually learning something here?
Radium is a babbling idiot who infests various groups.
I guess he's got fed up with being ignored / told to shut up, so he's found some
new ones to troll.
Graham
Citizen Bob
<jo...@sydpcug.org.au> wrote:
>> Here are my rules for digital video:
>> 1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
>> least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
>> X 1080 pixels.
>Here are my rules for internet posting:
>1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly differentiate between mhz
>(millihertz) and Mhz (megahertz).
Here's my rule:
1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly designate Hz (Hertz).
--
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total
of 2,112 deaths, that gives a monthly firearm death rate of 60 per
100,000 soldiers. The monthly firearm death rate in Washington D.C.
is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are
more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has the
strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
John Fields
<jo...@sydpcug.org.au> wrote:
---
The H needs to be upper case in both cases: millihertz = mHz,
megahertz = MHz.
--
JF
snork...@gmail.com
John de Stigter wrote:
> Here are my rules for internet posting:
> 1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly differentiate between mhz
> (millihertz) and Mhz (megahertz).
>
> Regards,
> John.
Here are my rules for posting to the Internets:
1) Always be sure the choice of the plural or the singular agrees with
the order of the list.
2) If it doesn't, apply rule 2.
|
| Mark
|
Martin Heffels
wrote:
>Here are my rules for posting to the Internets:
Well, most of us can't post on Internet-2, so better stick to Internet-1,
the common denominator.
>1) Always be sure the choice of the plural or the singular agrees with
>the order of the list.
>2) If it doesn't, apply rule 2.
I believe your list ends in an infinite loop at step 2. Now what?
-m-
--
Gene E. Bloch
Repeat if necessary :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Michael A. Terrell
First of all, there is only one "Internet". Secondly, this is
Usenet, not the internet. Just because you choose to use a crippled
HTML portal to Usenet doesn't change anything.
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> First of all, there is only one "Internet".
There are 2 "Internets"... http://www.internet2.edu/
>Secondly, this is Usenet, not the internet.
While this may have been a seperate network before,
Usenet runs over the regular internet now.
-m-
--
Ray S
You mean it used to be a separate series of tubes!! :)
Bob Myers
"Ray S" <ma...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cbq6h.353$eb5...@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>> While this may have been a seperate network before,
>> Usenet runs over the regular internet now.
>>
>> -m-
>
> You mean it used to be a separate series of tubes!! :)
>
No, it was a set of separate twisty little passages,
all alike...
Bob M.
Ron Capik
It was a real adventure back then.
[ ..now where'd I put that ecru potion.
Ooops, wrong maze. ]
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Martin Heffels
>You mean it used to be a separate series of tubes!! :)
:-))
--
Michael A. Terrell
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:08:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > First of all, there is only one "Internet".
>
> There are 2 "Internets"... http://www.internet2.edu/
Read it again. It is a group working to improve the existing Internet
backbone.
>
> >Secondly, this is Usenet, not the internet.
>
> While this may have been a seperate network before,
> Usenet runs over the regular internet now.
Usenet still requires news servers, even if it accessed over the same
connection. You can not read or reply to this message without logging
into your provider's news server farm, therefor, it is a separate
system. Yo can not browse the web with news reader software.
Richard Crowley
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>> "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > First of all, there is only one "Internet".
>>
>> There are 2 "Internets"... http://www.internet2.edu/
>
> Read it again. It is a group working to improve the existing Internet
> backbone.
That is the ultimate goal. However, for now, it is actually a separate
network with only a few priveleged players connected. Because the
current "internet" can't support the things they need to test. (Else it
wouldn't need "improvement")
Michael A. Terrell
That makes it a test bed, not a real internet.
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Read it again. It is a group working to improve the existing Internet
>backbone.
That is the steering-group, but it does actually exist and is used
exclusively in the academic world, has it's own backbone, with big,
superfast pipes. It is not connected to "internet 1", as way of keeping the
rubbish out, and use it as the internet was before it got "commercialised".
>> >Secondly, this is Usenet, not the internet.
>>
>> While this may have been a seperate network before,
>> Usenet runs over the regular internet now.
>
> Usenet still requires news servers, even if it accessed over the same
>connection. You can not read or reply to this message without logging
>into your provider's news server farm, therefor, it is a separate
>system. Yo can not browse the web with news reader software.
It is a seperate system, but runs over the internet. The internet is the
name of the network, and not related to anything specific, say webbrowsing.
cheers
-martin-
--
jasen
> Yo can not browse the web with news reader software.
I can think of three counter-examoles.
--
Bye.
Jasen
snork...@gmail.com
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> First of all, there is only one "Internet".
Search "George W. Bush" "Internets"
Sorry, I though it was obvious humor, not obscure humor.
|
| Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
|
Martin Heffels
wrote:
>Search "George W. Bush" "Internets"
>
>Sorry, I though it was obvious humor, not obscure humor.
Well uhm, maybe you should have a look at a map of the world sometimes.
There are other countries next to the USA, you know :-D Countries which are
not familiar with "inside jokes". Sorry for us being so dumb ;-)
-m-
--
Frank
in article <Re: My rules for digital video>,
Martin Heffels <is....@oris.ityou.info> wrote:
Turning away for just a moment from the fascinating subject of the
"Internets", I wonder if our original poster, Mr. Radium, would be
interested in Aleksandar (Alex) Zambelli's WMV Bitrate Calculator.
http://www.citizeninsomniac.com/WMV/WMVBitCalc.html
--
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
Thanks for the link. However, what doesn't make sense to me is that the
audio bit-rate seems to determine the video bit-rate.
I was expecting something which calculates the bit-rate via the amount
of pixelXpixel, color-depth, sample-rate, and intensity of compression.
Guess I was hoping for too much.
Martin Heffels
>Thanks for the link. However, what doesn't make sense to me is that the
>audio bit-rate seems to determine the video bit-rate.
Uhhmmmm, right. Another eye-opener :-D
-m-
--
Homer J Simpson
"ma...@ieee.org" <snork...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163589682.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> First of all, there is only one "Internet".
>
> Search "George W. Bush" "Internets"
>
> Sorry, I though it was obvious humor, not obscure humor.
They bought GW a VTech Laptop Computer. He hasn't quite figured it out yet -
and he's fuzzy about how to surf the net on it.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:44:24 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Read it again. It is a group working to improve the existing Internet
> >backbone.
>
> That is the steering-group, but it does actually exist and is used
> exclusively in the academic world, has it's own backbone, with big,
> superfast pipes. It is not connected to "internet 1", as way of keeping the
> rubbish out, and use it as the internet was before it got "commercialised".
It is still a privet test bed, no matter what they call it.
>
> >> >Secondly, this is Usenet, not the internet.
> >>
> >> While this may have been a seperate network before,
> >> Usenet runs over the regular internet now.
> >
> > Usenet still requires news servers, even if it accessed over the same
> >connection. You can not read or reply to this message without logging
> >into your provider's news server farm, therefor, it is a separate
> >system. Yo can not browse the web with news reader software.
>
> It is a seperate system, but runs over the internet. The internet is the
> name of the network, and not related to anything specific, say webbrowsing.
You are referring to the backbone, not the web servers.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
Martin Heffels
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It is still a privet test bed, no matter what they call it.
It is not. Like I said it's in use by universities. The reason that you
can't access it, doesn't make it private.
>> It is a seperate system, but runs over the internet. The internet is the
>> name of the network, and not related to anything specific, say webbrowsing.
>
> You are referring to the backbone, not the web servers.
And the backbone is called???? C'mon, make a guess.... :-D
-m-
--
Michael A. Terrell
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:38:15 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It is still a privet test bed, no matter what they call it.
>
> It is not. Like I said it's in use by universities. The reason that you
> can't access it, doesn't make it private.
It is a large, private INTRANET.
>
> >> It is a seperate system, but runs over the internet. The internet is the
> >> name of the network, and not related to anything specific, say webbrowsing.
> >
> > You are referring to the backbone, not the web servers.
>
> And the backbone is called???? C'mon, make a guess.... :-D
Which part? PTSN, (The Phone Company) Fiber optic, (CATV) or maybe
the custom wideband microwave link I built for NASA to connect the
International Space Station? Do you know the available data rate to the
ISS? How about the video bandwidth for teleconferencing? How about the
IP address for the ISS? Whoops! That's another private wide area
INTRANET.
John de Stigter
"Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:4559bc92...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:59:23 +1100, "John de Stigter"
> <jo...@sydpcug.org.au> wrote:
>
> >> Here are my rules for digital video:
>
> >> 1. Whether compressed or not, the video must have a sample-rate of at
> >> least 148.50 mhz, and a progressive-scan image format of at least 1920
> >> X 1080 pixels.
>
> >Here are my rules for internet posting:
> >1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly differentiate between mhz
> >(millihertz) and Mhz (megahertz).
>
> Here's my rule:
>
> 1. Learn to use the shift key to correctly designate Hz (Hertz).
>
>
Touche!
Regards,
John.
John de Stigter
The "attempted" humour was based on echoing "Here are my rules".
Pedantry is such hard work.
Regards,
John.