Hi:

I apologize profusely for my persistance on this topic. Hopefully this
will be the last time -- unless of course, I get even more curious!

1 bit-per-second are impossible. What about 1-byte-per-second?

Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
byte-per-second?

Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Radium

Bob Myers wrote:
The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
required?

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

No.

Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
for what you're trying to do.

Bob M.

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Required for what???????

You need to go to a school where these issues are explained, I suppose. Are
you under 10?

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Look, "the minimum bit-rate" is a subjective quantity.

Long before you get to the lowest bitrate that any
encoder will function at, you would have unrecognizable and
unwatchable video. And the theoretical "minimum bit-rate",
as your threads seem to turn into; is not something that an
encoder could approach.

Your question has no practical value.

Luck;
Ken

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

You appear to be pathologically uninterested in doing any research
other than asking a succession of questions of this group.

Why don't you download a video compressor, and try it
on some images / video sequences. See for yourself what
sort of quality you get at various bit-rates.

Pete Fraser wrote:

HE IS A TROLL! He does this crap all the time.


--
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

Ken Maltby wrote:
What is the lowest bit-rate that the most flexible video encoder will
function at?

Pete Fraser wrote:
Thats because there is no info available as to how low a bit-rate that
a WMV encoder will tolerate.

WMV compressors aren't available.

Bob Myers wrote:
Okay. 1-bit file size wont work. 1-bit-per-second bit-rate is
impossible as well. 1-byte-per-second is anymore capable of existing.
How about "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080
progressive scan image, and an "object data" of 1kbps?

WMA can have a bit-rate of 20 kbps despite having a sample-rate of 44.1
khz. Couldn't WMV also have a bit-rate less than its sample-rate? I
hope so but am SO SO unsure of whether its possible or not.

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

It shows how bad you've done your research. Any program which can encode
video, can compress to WMV.

-m-
--

On 2006-11-08, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
Actually, all of the standard 20 kbps WMA files have maximum of
32 kHz sample rate.

-Pasi
--
/She was not one of those fool women who tossed their brains at a man's
feet along with their hearts. It was just that sometimes, near him,
thinking clearly became a trifle difficult. That was all./
-- Min in The Wheel of Time:"A Crown of Swords"

Pasi Ojala wrote:
Not necessarily. My Adobe Audtion 1.5 allows me to make a WMA file
whose bit-rate is 20 kbps while its sample-rate is 44.1 khz.

If it can be done with audio, then why not with video?

I don't understand why its physically-impossible to have a "Real WMV"
format with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan image,
and "object data" bit-rate of 20 kbps.

Radium wrote:
Because there's more data in video than in audio.

There is a relation between "quality" (distortion) and bit rate (rate),
the lower the bit rate, the lower the quality. The point is now that
there is a theory (rate-distortion theory) that gives predictions for
what the relation between rate and distortion looks like. One of the
results is that - under certain constraints - you need to invest one
additional bit per sample to gain ~6dB increment in quality. Regardless
of quantizer, encoder and model, this law holds almost universally for
qualities that are "not too low". And if you look at rate distortion
curves for natural images with JPEG-1 or JPEG-2000 or whatever, you
almost always find this law - that is a slope of approximately 6dB
per bit. Every improvement in encoder efficiency for lossless data
compression can only "fiddle around" a bit at low or high or whatever
bitrates, but the overall slope stays like this.

Now, how many bits per second do you need to transmit for audio, and
how many bits per second do you need to transmit for video? Estimate
this, use the "high-bitrate approximation" and you get a feeling why
what is possible for audio is not possible for video.

Does this clear things up?

So long
Thomas

Folks, please stop responding to this person. He doesn't get it. He
will never get it. A rock would understand by now that his question,
and his overall premise, are so stupid as to defy common sense.

So whoever this guy/girl/alien is, he either is absolutely incapable of
comprehending any explanation offered to him, or he is a troll, plain
and simple. Either way, it's time to give it up. So ignore him,
killfile him, do something...but just let him go away. I've never seen
a thread with so many people waste so much time on a post as silly as
this one.

"Radium" wrote...
OK, which is "the most flexible video encoder"?
Do you see the problem with your question here?

"Radium" wrote ...
What happened when you tried it?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...r/default.mspx

Duh?

"Radium" wrote...
How many frames per hour were you thinking of?

Why don't you just try it and find out directly instead of trolling for
2nd hand opinions from the rest of us?

"Radium" wrote ...
Go for it. Let us know how it turned out.

Consider the fact that WMV doesn't support framerates that are
so slow it is no longer considered to be "video" by most people.
If you want bandwidth that low, just make a slide show of JPEG
stills.

"Morbius" wrote...
HEAR! HEAR! Well said.