"Morbius" <nospam@thank.you> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fbbbb51aa1924ef98968e@msnews.microsoft.c om...
"I thought this was a state the obvious contest."
"I'm competitive by nature."

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kc-dnejvta6Ki8_YnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Again, do some research. THINK about what a single bit
or byte really conveys. In other words, here's one bit of information
- what sort of a question can that single bit answer? Here's
eight bits, that we have called a "byte." How many decisions
can you make based on THAT information?

Now, how many such "decisions" are necessary to recreate a
single frame of 1920 x 1080 video (just as one example)?
You don't know enough at this point to precisely answer that
question, but if you've really thought about what the previous
questions mean, it should be quite clear that it's WAY more
than a single bit or byte.

Bob M.

Richard Crowley wrote:
Just where did I say anything about frame-rates being slow? I want my
frame-rate as rapid as a first-class video signal -- thats what that
148.50 mhz sample-rate is for.

"Radium" wrote ...
Not at 1 bps, or 1Kbps or even 20KBps. Get a clue.
Sample rate does NOT imply framerate. Certainly not after
compression.

Your questions are tiresome to mose of us because you display
a complete lack of understanding of how much data it takes to
make video, and what the effects of compression are on that
bandwidth. Try some of these experiments for yourself and get
a feel for what happens in the real world. Then you may be able
to appreciate why most of us think you are asking insane questions.

Richard Crowley wrote:
Why not? If WMA can have a bit-rate lower than its sample rate, then
why can't WMV?

I am aware of that. The frame rate -- which is 60 hz in America.

There is however, some part of the signal [which I have no idea of]
that must not exceed 74.25 mhz. The sample-rate of 148.50 mhz is needed
to support the signal that is 74.25 mhz. What signal is this?

If the frame-rate is only 60 hz, then why is a 148.50 mhz sample-rate
necessary?

I am guessing that the 148.50 mhz is necessary for the color signal,
which changes rather rapidly. This is only a guess though, after I
found out that NTSC uses 3.579545
MHz for the color signal.

How so?

As you say, sample-rate does not imply frame-rate. However, sample-rate
*also* does not imply bit-rate.

A bit-rate of 20kbps is not necessary a sample-rate of 20 khz. They are
two different things.

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1163013649.793614.215770@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Please group...see what the problem is? PLEASE learn something. Learn
what audio and video are...learn what compression is.

This is so stupid!!!! Do you not understand that I am telling you this?
You know on the level of a child.

Will this group of excellent posters please stop here? He is an
idiot.....and not a savant!

"Quanta" <none@none.NET> wrote in message
news:eitqhp$ugl$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu...
PS

Next he will be wondering why the Library of Congress cannot be stored in 1
bit.

1920 X 1080 is over 2meg pixels. Codec software allows for compressions
below 20%. That takes 2meg down to 400k-bits or 12.5k-bytes of 32-bit data.
Proprietary firmware minimizes additional bits for color, even up to 16.1
million colors. The 12.5k-byte "packet" can be decompressed with just a few
clock cycles. If sampling occurs before the next packet is decompressed, the
currently decompressed packet, or "page", is held or repeated for display.
High sampling frequencies are easily achieved with hardware and will always
be waiting on data through-put and software decompressions. Look up the
slowest refresh rate of your monitor and also decide on a "frames per
second" rate (DVD is 30 frames per second). Investigate your data
through-put AND your computer's front side bus speed AND your AGP
multiplication.
To answer your question, yes, you can have 148.5mhz sampling with a 1-byte
per second object data rate if you can find a way to slow your through-put.
For streaming video, I suggest a "com redirector" that creates a virtual com
port from an IP address and allows you to set baud rates as low as 150 bits
per second. Then use a quad digital divider.
HTH
Bart

Oh, at a one bit per second data rate, you'll wait for 27.77 hours for the
first frame to appear, and then 27.77 hours for the next frame to appear. I
mean, we all like slow-mo when it comes to porn but COME ON!




"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

"Bart" <bborb@fusedotnet> wrote in message
news:6cf89$45529414$d8442e8c$16765@FUSE.NET...

Maybe I've been approaching these threads in the wrong way.
I should be more helpful, so why should "Radium" restrict himself
to a whole pixel? If he really wants to get it down there he should
consider "Qtr Pixels", I use them all the time with my AVC/H264
encoding.

Luck;
Ken

Bart wrote:
You are talking about slowing the data rate, slow-motion and decreasing
the baud-rate. I don't want any of that. I want the frame-rates to
remain fast. The only thing I want compressed is the color-depth.

Ken Maltby wrote:
I don't want to restrict to just one pixel. I want 1920 X 1080
progressive scan image.

<snip>
"Radium" wrote...
<The only thing I want compressed is the color-depth.>

Suggest a Crayola suppository.
http://www.4i2i.com/low_bit_rate_video.htm
Note the references at the bottom of the page.
HTH
Bart

On 7 Nov 2006 15:19:14 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> opined:

Yes. I gave you a couple of useful Wikipedia links about Information
Theory in the long post I wrote especially for you, that you were
obviously too lazy to read.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On 7 Nov 2006 18:01:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> opined:

Of course there is. It'll be listed in the documentation for the
particular encoder library module.

Bull. You can freely download at least three different WMV codec
packages from Microsofts website, & there are a couple of Open Source
(ie; free, & well documented) codecs that will read &/or write WMVs.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Radium wrote:
No, it takes the 44.1KHz input, but the encoder resamples to 32KHz
during encoding. But that whole point is moot because a ton of
frequencies are thrown away during encoding so you'll never actually
reproduce frequencies that high in the compressed output.

Lossy compression is obviously possible, but not with the targets you
are specifying. You can't ask "why isn't 1kbps possible" when it's not
even possible with the audio examples you keep citing.

Then you are an idiot, and need to stop asking these questions until
you buy a few clues. Here's a book that I have personally read that I
think will help you:
http://www.amazon.com/Video-Compress.../dp/0071363246
Try reading that before posting here again.

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1163059782.927613.72150@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

And for the Nth time, I'll tell you that you can't do that at the
bit/byte rates you're talking about. It's up to you at this point to
learn why this is so, since you've apparently ignored any number
of very clear explanations.

Bob M.