"Real WMV" 2-hour movie, 148.50 Mhz, 1920 x 1080 progerssive scan image, 1-bit file size

[Radium]

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 148.50 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.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...

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.

After this, the WMV video is then converted back to uncompressed RGB
[I'll call this the "2nd RGB"]. The 2nd RGB has the same sample-rate,
image format ["resolution"], and color-depth as the 1st RGB. However,
the WMV truncation of the color-depth would obviously show up in the
2nd RGB because the 2nd RGB previously was WMV.

My question is, how would this 2nd RGB video look like after the above
processes?

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 when the 2nd RGB was in its
compressed WMV format, it was of such infinitisemly small color
resolution. Do I guess right?


Thanks,

Radium

P.S. Why not use this WMV for video-conferencing or for online video
viewing? There are many who watch their movies by downloading them from
a website.

 

[[email protected]]

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 148.50 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.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...

Links to nowhere - similar to explaining things to you.

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.

Lose that bit and the whole movie is gone. Wow.

After this, the WMV video is then converted back to uncompressed RGB
[I'll call this the "2nd RGB"]. The 2nd RGB has the same sample-rate,
image format ["resolution"], and color-depth as the 1st RGB. However,
the WMV truncation of the color-depth would obviously show up in the
2nd RGB because the 2nd RGB previously was WMV.

My question is, how would this 2nd RGB video look like after the above
processes?

If the bit were a '1', you'd see 2 hours of white screen. Are you
capable of devining what a '0' would be?

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 when the 2nd RGB was in its
compressed WMV format, it was of such infinitisemly small color
resolution. Do I guess right?

as usual, NO

Thanks,

Radium

P.S. Why not use this WMV for video-conferencing or for online video
viewing? There are many who watch their movies by downloading them from
a website.

Gee, I wonder.........

GG

 

[Radium]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...

Links to nowhere - similar to explaining things to you.

Sorry. Here are the links where I describe "real WMV":

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...61df4/4d4379f5c4b5f407?hl=en#4d4379f5c4b5f407

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

 

[Lionel]

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 148.50 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.compression/browse_frm/thread/1c5...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/dd...

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!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bzzzt! Error!

However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.

No, not possible.

 

[Radium]

However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.

No, not possible.

Why not? A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
bit-rate lower than its sample rate.

 

[Tom P.]

However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.

No, not possible.

Why not? A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
bit-rate lower than its sample rate.

Why not? Because when you use compression you have to compress
something. You can't use compression and have everything be the same.

Oh, and as for the initial question, it's impossible. You cannot
compress any amount of data smaller than 4 bytes. Look up the wmv
spec. Even if the picture was a blank screen it would take more than 4
bytes.

Or are you asking if you compress all the information out of a signal
will that affect the signal? Um, yes. That's what you are doing.

Tom P.

 

[Martin Heffels]

You can't use compression and have everything be the same.

So you mean the files I compress with WinRAR are not the same anymore?

cheers

-martin-

oh, forgot a big wink up there )
--

 

[Lionel]

However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.

No, not possible.

Why not?

Information theory proves it impossible.

A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
bit-rate lower than its sample rate.

Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Oct 2006 18:49:51 -0700, "Radium" <[email protected]> opined:
However, the image-resolution [in pixel X pixel], sample rate, and the
length of the movie -- 2 hours -- remain the same.

No, not possible.

Why not?

Information theory proves it impossible.

A 44.1 Khz WMA file can have a bit-rate as low as 20 kbps. In
uncompressed digital formats, you need at least a bit per sample. Not
necessarily so in compressed formats. That is how a WMA file can have a
bit-rate lower than its sample rate.

Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Be nice. 'Radium' is in the end phase of decaying into 'lead'........

GG

 

[Phil Carmody]

On 23 Oct 2006 10:55:35 -0700, "Radium" <[email protected]> opined: ....
Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website
somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.

1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.

Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!

Phil

 

[Lionel]

1's easy, Matt can do that with a custom-build of BARFEST, I'm sure.

Put up _3_ such movies, then I'll be impressed!

So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
you're using the same decompressor each time.
Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.

 

[[email protected]]

Yeah, whatever. Put up a 2 hour, single bit movie on a website

somewhere if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I was going to start a business selling single bit movies - it seems
like a natural, the download times are pretty short.

But for some reason, after working on it a long time, I was only able
to put two movies into my inventory. My investors said that I wasn't
going to be able to capture first mover advantage in the
single-bit-movie business with just two movies, so we backed off and
shut the plan down.

However, I haven't given up yet, I think I may be able to do better
with two-bit movies. I'm working on the compression algorithm right
now, and we'll see if I can get a larger inventory.

|
| Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
|

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I was going to start a business selling single bit movies - it seems
like a natural, the download times are pretty short.

But for some reason, after working on it a long time, I was only able
to put two movies into my inventory. My investors said that I wasn't
going to be able to capture first mover advantage in the
single-bit-movie business with just two movies, so we backed off and
shut the plan down.

However, I haven't given up yet, I think I may be able to do better
with two-bit movies. I'm working on the compression algorithm right
now, and we'll see if I can get a larger inventory.

Hollywood has been in the two bit movie business for over 50 years.


--
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]

Sorry. Here are the links where I describe "real WMV":

Why isn't the group science.for.completely-off-their-heads.barking-mad.lunatics there ?

Graham

 

[Martin Heffels]

Hollywood has been in the two bit movie business for over 50 years.

Really? They can bring out zer0-bit movies, because the current crop of
movies isn't a bit interesting at all.

;-)

-m-
--

 

[Lionel]

Why isn't the group science.for.completely-off-their-heads.barking-mad.lunatics there ?

Damn, I don't have that one on this news server.
On the bright side, it does have alt.usenet.kooks, where Mr Radium's
quest for UberVideoCompression would be just as on-topic.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Really? They can bring out zer0-bit movies, because the current crop of
movies isn't a bit interesting at all.

;-)

As long as they don't destroy those '50s and '60s Sci Fi films. They
are so bad that I could watch them all day long.


--
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

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

So will I - seeing as even the most generous interpretation of the
maths allows only 2 different decompressed output datasets from a
compressed file containing a single bit. (Assuming of course that
you're using the same decompressor each time.
Mind you, the decompression program's probably going to be pretty big.

Excellent point...

 

[Martin Heffels]

As long as they don't destroy those '50s and '60s Sci Fi films. They
are so bad that I could watch them all day long.

Well, that 1969 sci-fi movie about a landing on the moon is missing...


--

 

[Phil Carmody]

Excellent point...

Oi! It was /I/ who made the excellent point, it's just that
no-one bloody understood it! Slap-wristies if you needed the
explanation.

Phil