Uncompressed PCM Video

[Radium]

Methinks that you should really just sit down and look at the things that
you are talking about rather than arguing about it with people that know
exactly what you are talking about. These problems have all been worked
over in many different ways - every few decades, the technology gets a major
revamping due to better abilities in recording and storing data. Who knows
when the generation of video in the digital domain will change but some are
already calling for changes. Are you ready for 12 bit video? That will
increase the raw stream by 50% and make all of the present day encoding
schemes obselete.

I agree PCM uses lots of bandwidth which would make it impractical for
an hour long movies. For a 10 minute psychedelic variation of colored
patterens it would be perfect. Right?

 

[luminos]

It would be overkill for such a stupid use of bandwidth.

 

[Radium]

It would be overkill for such a stupid use of bandwidth.

Not for psychedelic-lovers of visual virtual reality.

 

[Radium]

Not for psychedelic-lovers of visual virtual reality.

Reducing the sampling frequency should decrease the amount of bandwidth used.

 

[Radium]

Reducing the sampling frequency should decrease the amount of bandwidth used.

Seriously, it would work.

The bit-resolution should be 10^500 gigabit.

The number of channels should be 10^500. Each channel should be
4-dimensional to fit the criteria of virtual reality.

Channels is the numbers of locations available for the signal.
Stereo[scopic] has two different channels. Mono[ocular] has only one
channel.

The sampling rate should be low enough to make the bit-rate 10^-500
(notice the negative sign) byte every 10^500 years.

This would make a perfect psychedelic visual.

 

[Glenn Gundlach]

Reducing the sampling frequency should decrease the amount of bandwidth used.

Seriously, it would work.

The bit-resolution should be 10^500 gigabit.

The number of channels should be 10^500. Each channel should be
4-dimensional to fit the criteria of virtual reality.

Channels is the numbers of locations available for the signal.
Stereo[scopic] has two different channels. Mono[ocular] has only one
channel.

The sampling rate should be low enough to make the bit-rate 10^-500
(notice the negative sign) byte every 10^500 years.

This would make a perfect psychedelic visual.

Is that 10 to the 500th power BILLION bits per second and 10 to 500th
power channels? You're in need of psychiatric and engineering help.
Just venting.
GG

 

[Radium]

[email protected] (Radium) wrote in message It would be overkill for such a stupid use of bandwidth.

Not for psychedelic-lovers of visual virtual reality.

Reducing the sampling frequency should decrease the amount of bandwidth used.

Seriously, it would work.

The bit-resolution should be 10^500 gigabit.

The number of channels should be 10^500. Each channel should be
4-dimensional to fit the criteria of virtual reality.

Channels is the numbers of locations available for the signal.
Stereo[scopic] has two different channels. Mono[ocular] has only one
channel.

The sampling rate should be low enough to make the bit-rate 10^-500
(notice the negative sign) byte every 10^500 years.

This would make a perfect psychedelic visual.

Is that 10 to the 500th power BILLION bits per second and 10 to 500th
power channels? You're in need of psychiatric and engineering help.
Just venting.
GG

Its "theoretical".

 

[Radium]

[email protected] (Radium) wrote in message It would be overkill for such a stupid use of bandwidth.

Not for psychedelic-lovers of visual virtual reality.

Reducing the sampling frequency should decrease the amount of bandwidth used.

Seriously, it would work.

The bit-resolution should be 10^500 gigabit.

The number of channels should be 10^500. Each channel should be
4-dimensional to fit the criteria of virtual reality.

Channels is the numbers of locations available for the signal.
Stereo[scopic] has two different channels. Mono[ocular] has only one
channel.

The sampling rate should be low enough to make the bit-rate 10^-500
(notice the negative sign) byte every 10^500 years.

This would make a perfect psychedelic visual.

Is that 10 to the 500th power BILLION bits per second and 10 to 500th
power channels?

Yes. However, the slow sample rate should decrease the bit-rate and
thus the bandwidth (See below)

Bit-resolution = 10^500 gigabit per 10^-500 second (notice the
negative)
Number of channels = 10^500
Bit-rate = 10^-500 byte every 10^500 years (notice the negative)
Sampling rate = ?

Given the bit-resolution, # of channels, and bit-rate, what frequency
would the sampling rate have to be?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Bit-resolution = 10^500 gigabit per 10^-500 second (notice the
negative)
Number of channels = 10^500
Bit-rate = 10^-500 byte every 10^500 years (notice the negative)
Sampling rate = ?

Given the bit-resolution, # of channels, and bit-rate, what frequency
would the sampling rate have to be?

Every once in a while

 

[Radium]

Every once in a while

Is there any mathematical equation to find out what the sampling rate
would be given the other information?

 

[erik phoxie]

Jeez. You know that. Sampling rate should be twice the amount your
senses can experience. This topic is a little stupid though. PCM
coding of colours would mean we'd get a real low samplerate for that.

 

[Radium]

The purpose of the extremely slow sample rate is to make the the
virtual reality much more psychedelic. A strong bit-resolution
strenthens the visuals (less "noise", larger dynamic range, etc.). The
large amount of channels would only add to the vertigo. Right?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Is there any mathematical equation to find out what the sampling rate
would be given the other information?

The resolution in bits (sample width) has nothing to do with it.
Niquist theorem says we should sample AT LEAST 2x maximum frequency.
The closer you are to 2x, the steeper you have to filter (before you sample).
That may introduce iler artifacts (ringing etc.)
So 2.1 or 2.3 should be safe.
So one in a while to sample that Usenet post should be...
JP

 

[Radium]

The resolution in bits (sample width) has nothing to do with it.
Niquist theorem says we should sample AT LEAST 2x maximum frequency.
The closer you are to 2x, the steeper you have to filter (before you sample).
That may introduce iler artifacts (ringing etc.)

Ringing? In video?

Ringing is an audio artifact not a visual one. Right?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Ringing? In video?

Ringing is an audio artifact not a visual one. Right?

Well, you could hear it in audio I guess, but electronic types use 'ringing'
when referring to the (damped) oscillations after a transient in ANY signal.
A filter does not care or know if something is audio or video...
Could be slow scan video in audio range too.
JP

 

[Glenn Gundlach]

The resolution in bits (sample width) has nothing to do with it.
Niquist theorem says we should sample AT LEAST 2x maximum frequency.
The closer you are to 2x, the steeper you have to filter (before you sample).
That may introduce iler artifacts (ringing etc.)

Ringing? In video?

Ringing is an audio artifact not a visual one. Right?
[/QUOTE]
No. Ringing as a big problem in video. Heck, the whole signal is
nothing but pulses strung together. A continuous 'tone' is a test
signal in video. Square waves are often the signal in video.
GG

 

[erik phoxie]

And err .. with a low sample rate, you mean an enormous amount of
flicker/jerky video, or just counting the pixels kinda thing ? Or
maybe, as someone mentioned, slow scan video as in: 'soft' updates?

Explain .... still wondering what exactly you want, actually

greetz, e

 

[Radium]

Sampling rate is the number of samples per second. CDs use 44.1 khz.

Sample rate deteremines the frequency response (or frame rate) of the
video. In slow enough rates you can see the psychedelic
flicker/vibrations in the visuals.

Bit-resolution determines the SNR or dynamic range of the visuals.
Less bit-resolution makes the video "noisier". I suppose in digital
video you could count the pixels in a weak enough resolution. This is
what I do *not* want in my video.

 

[BobGardner]

Just give it a strong bit-resolution, a low frequency sample rate, and

multiple video channels and you will get quality much better than MPEG
video.

None of you guys called him out for violating the sampling theorem. If the
video is 4.5 MHz, you need to sample at 9 MHz. If you want 30 or 40 dB signal
to noise ration, you want to sample at 8 bits or more. He just wantsa to see a
digital version of Glen McKay's Headlights that played the Fillmore in '69 with
the Airplane using a bunch of overhead projectors and colored water and oil
jiggled by hand. See if you can google up a copy of Syntrilliium Kaliedoscope.
Its pretty far out.

 

[Radium]

None of you guys called him out for violating the sampling theorem. If the
video is 4.5 MHz, you need to sample at 9 MHz.

What does it mean for the "video to be 4.5 MHz"?