"Real WMV", 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan image, "object data" bit-rate of 1

Discussion in 'Windows Media Player' started by Radium, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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!
    WMV with 1-bit file size as well as WMV with an object-data bit-rate of
    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
     
    Radium, Nov 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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, Nov 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    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.
     
    Bob Myers, Nov 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    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.
     
    Bob Myers, Nov 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Radium

    Quanta Guest

    Required for what???????

    You need to go to a school where these issues are explained, I suppose. Are
    you under 10?
     
    Quanta, Nov 7, 2006
    #5
  6. Radium

    Quanta Guest

    Required for what???????

    You need to go to a school where these issues are explained, I suppose. Are
    you under 10?
     
    Quanta, Nov 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Radium

    Pete Fraser Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2006
    #7
  8. Radium

    Pete Fraser Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Radium

    Radium Guest

    What is the lowest bit-rate that the most flexible video encoder will
    function at?
     
    Radium, Nov 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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.
     
    Radium, Nov 8, 2006
    #10
  11. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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.
     
    Radium, Nov 8, 2006
    #11
  12. Radium

    Pasi Ojala Guest

    Actually, all of the standard 20 kbps WMA files have maximum of
    32 kHz sample rate.

    -Pasi
     
    Pasi Ojala, Nov 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Radium

    Pasi Ojala Guest

    Actually, all of the standard 20 kbps WMA files have maximum of
    32 kHz sample rate.

    -Pasi
     
    Pasi Ojala, Nov 8, 2006
    #13
  14. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2006
    #14
  15. 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
     
    Thomas Richter, Nov 8, 2006
    #15
  16. 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
     
    Thomas Richter, Nov 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Radium

    Morbius Guest

    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.
     
    Morbius, Nov 8, 2006
    #17
  18. Radium

    Morbius Guest

    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.
     
    Morbius, Nov 8, 2006
    #18
  19. "Radium" wrote...
    OK, which is "the most flexible video encoder"?
    Do you see the problem with your question here?
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 8, 2006
    #19
  20. "Radium" wrote...
    OK, which is "the most flexible video encoder"?
    Do you see the problem with your question here?
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.