"Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 13.5 Mhz, 1920 x 1080 progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size

Discussion in 'Windows Media Player' started by Radium, Oct 21, 2006.

  1. Radium

    Radium Guest

    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 13.5 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...61df4/4d4379f5c4b5f407?hl=en#4d4379f5c4b5f407

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....65f22/a053e0a3953bb268?hl=en#a053e0a3953bb268

    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.

    My question is, how would this WMV video look like after compression of
    the color-depth?

    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 of the infinitisemly small
    color resolution. Do I guess right?


    Thanks,

    Radium
     
    Radium, Oct 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Radium

    Pete Fraser Guest

    That would be about 5 frames / second. Is that really what you're after?
    Each frame is about 2 MPixels active. Add a bit for blanking, and 13.5 MHz
    gives you about 5 fps.

    13.5 MHz is an appropriate sampling frequency for 480i or 576i.
     
    Pete Fraser, Oct 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Radium

    Pete Fraser Guest

    That would be about 5 frames / second. Is that really what you're after?
    Each frame is about 2 MPixels active. Add a bit for blanking, and 13.5 MHz
    gives you about 5 fps.

    13.5 MHz is an appropriate sampling frequency for 480i or 576i.
     
    Pete Fraser, Oct 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Radium

    Radium Guest

    What is then appropriate frequency for 1920 X 1080?

    AFAIK all digital video has sample-rates of 13.5 Mhz

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate#Video_systems

    Unless, of course, you're talking about something else.
     
    Radium, Oct 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Radium

    Radium Guest

    Okay this is getting frustrating and
    confusing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Bob M in "Currently-Available Highest-Quality Linear PCM Video?" said
    that the one and only sample-rate for video is 13.5
    mhz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And now I am being told that there are even HIGHER sample
    rates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k
    F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k F--k

    I WAS LOOKING FOR THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE USED IN DIGITAL VIDEO AND
    DIDN'T FIND OUT WHAT IT WAS UNTIL *TOO
    LATE*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
    F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K F--K
     
    Radium, Oct 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Radium

    Radium Guest

    AND I PROBABLY STILL HAVEN'T FOUND OUT THE HIGHEST SAMPLE-RATE
    CURRENTLY IN USE FOR DIGITAL
    VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Radium, Oct 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Radium

    nec556 Guest

    Radium ha escrito:
    Please, don't cry. Read, learn and study and after that, make
    questions. But don't cry me about your problems, solute them and if you
    need help, ask. If you have a question, ask it, here or where you want,
    but i only answer to people that acts, works and thinks as adult, don't
    child that cry when encounter a problem.

    Have you go to a library for consult books about this theme? Search in
    Google/Altavista etc...? Search on IEEE transactions or similiar
    publications? Have you ever read the netiquette FAQ? It's cited on
    comp.compression FAQ (did you read it?).

    Thanks.
     
    nec556, Oct 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Radium

    Radium Guest

    Thanks for clearing this up. What is the maximum color-depth currently
    used for 148.50MHz for 1920x1080p @ 60Hz? Is it 32-bit or 24-bit?
     
    Radium, Oct 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Radium

    stratus46 Guest

     
    stratus46, Oct 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    No, I didn't. You asked what the common sample rate
    was for digital video, and I told that ONE common sample
    rate was, as you have again been told here, the CCIR-601
    standard rate of 13.5 MHz, used for digitizing STANDARD-
    DEFINITION video. It's not the only rate used for such things,
    but it's currently one of the most common SD rates and there's
    no significant quality difference among them for that purpose.

    In that same thread, we then got into the notion of "pixel rates,"
    but you never seemed to catch on to the fact that the pixel
    rate IS the sample rate in digital video. (Pixel rate is a bit
    more generic term, since not all pixels arise from the sampling
    of analog video - some, as in computer graphics, are simply
    synthesized as "digital" entities right from the start.)

    Please take this next bit as it's intended - to be a bit of
    hopefully helpful criticism. You are spending far too much
    time asking unrelated questions, and not spending enough
    actually trying to understand the answers you're being given.
    This is why many people, including at times myself, believe
    that what you're actually doing here is trolling. If that's the
    case, you won't get anything from THIS, either - but on the
    chance that it's not, please learn from this.

    Bob M.
     
    Bob Myers, Oct 23, 2006
    #10
  11. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    No, I didn't. You asked what the common sample rate
    was for digital video, and I told that ONE common sample
    rate was, as you have again been told here, the CCIR-601
    standard rate of 13.5 MHz, used for digitizing STANDARD-
    DEFINITION video. It's not the only rate used for such things,
    but it's currently one of the most common SD rates and there's
    no significant quality difference among them for that purpose.

    In that same thread, we then got into the notion of "pixel rates,"
    but you never seemed to catch on to the fact that the pixel
    rate IS the sample rate in digital video. (Pixel rate is a bit
    more generic term, since not all pixels arise from the sampling
    of analog video - some, as in computer graphics, are simply
    synthesized as "digital" entities right from the start.)

    Please take this next bit as it's intended - to be a bit of
    hopefully helpful criticism. You are spending far too much
    time asking unrelated questions, and not spending enough
    actually trying to understand the answers you're being given.
    This is why many people, including at times myself, believe
    that what you're actually doing here is trolling. If that's the
    case, you won't get anything from THIS, either - but on the
    chance that it's not, please learn from this.

    Bob M.
     
    Bob Myers, Oct 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    Understand the following, and you will understand it all:

    The highest sample rate in use for "digital video," if you
    use the broad definition of that phrase to include ALL digitally
    connected displays, is simply the pixel rate for the highest
    pixel format/refresh rate combination currently in use.

    Your use of the term "digital video," however, has caused
    a number of us to assume that you're talking about "television"
    or "entertainment" video - and in that context, there's a very
    limited set of standard formats and rates.

    Bob M.
     
    Bob Myers, Oct 23, 2006
    #12
  13. Radium

    Bob Myers Guest

    Understand the following, and you will understand it all:

    The highest sample rate in use for "digital video," if you
    use the broad definition of that phrase to include ALL digitally
    connected displays, is simply the pixel rate for the highest
    pixel format/refresh rate combination currently in use.

    Your use of the term "digital video," however, has caused
    a number of us to assume that you're talking about "television"
    or "entertainment" video - and in that context, there's a very
    limited set of standard formats and rates.

    Bob M.
     
    Bob Myers, Oct 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Radium

    James Beck Guest

    James Beck, Oct 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Radium

    James Beck Guest

    James Beck, Oct 24, 2006
    #15
  16. "James Beck" wrote ...
    I'd suspect that you would get the same warning about recipes
    from Wikipedia from the cooking forums!
     
    Richard Crowley, Oct 24, 2006
    #16
  17. "James Beck" wrote ...
    I'd suspect that you would get the same warning about recipes
    from Wikipedia from the cooking forums!
     
    Richard Crowley, Oct 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Radium

    James Beck Guest

    Of that I have no doubt.

    "Fact" by popular vote seems a bit 1984ish to me.

    Jim
     
    James Beck, Oct 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Radium

    James Beck Guest

    Of that I have no doubt.

    "Fact" by popular vote seems a bit 1984ish to me.

    Jim
     
    James Beck, Oct 24, 2006
    #19
    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.