[Richard Crowley]

"Bob Myers" wrote...
"robert bristow-johnson" wrote ...
the difference between those different video compression formats is
roughly analogous to the difference in the various audio compression
formats that you claim are "all PCM". so i guess all video is PCM,
from your definition.

Yes, and all your base are belong to us....;-)

An excelent summary of the troll. :-))
I'm done.

[Jerry Avins]

Richard Crowley wrote:

...

... It would
also be helpful to reveal WHY you are asking so maybe
we can figure out WHAT you are asking.

Does a troll's reason for posing a question really puzzle you?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Richard Crowley]

"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
"Radium" wrote ...
On Feb 12, 7:52 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Radium" wrote ...
Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

How do these video discs looks like? Are they bigger than CDs? Do they
use uncompressed digital video? If so, where could I possibly find
these treasures?

Sony XDCAM HD. Don't try to read the price while standing.

Of course, we have to wonder where "Radium" thinks he
can get access to any "uncompressed video". I seriously
doubt that he has ever seen it (or likely ever will in his
lifetime.)

Even if he had a means of recording "uncompresed video"
what is he going to use as a source? And if he had a player,
where does he think he can get any "uncompressed video"
programming to play on it?

[Bob Myers]

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
RGB is analog, not digital, so this is not a reasonble question.

Bob Myers says in http://groups.google.com/group/
sci.electronics.basics/msg/bbad436d1cb6cd02?hl=en& :

"RGB simply means "red, green, and blue" video - it clearly can be
represented in either analog or digital form."

Yes, I did say that, and it still holds true. For instance,
the video going over the common DVI digital interface is
RGB in digital form. The "VGA" connector (HD15)
carries RGB in analog form. There are other examples
of each.

But to the original question - PCM is far from the only
common format for uncompressed digital audio. (For that
matter, simply saying that a digital data stream is being
transmitted in "PCM" form says nothing about whether
the data in question is compressed or uncompressed.)

Bob M.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

What is the most common type of uncompressed digital video? Is it a
type of PCM format? If not, what is it and why isn't PCM video -- like
the PCM audio in CDs -- used?

What do you think "format" means? What do you think
"PCM" means? How will you recognize a correct answer
when you don't even really understand the question?

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message
ups.com...


the difference between those different video compression formats is
roughly analogous to the difference in the various audio compression
formats that you claim are "all PCM". so i guess all video is PCM,
from your definition.

Yes, and all your base are belong to us....;-)

Bob M.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

(some groups removed)
robert bristow-johnson wrote:

(snip)

the difference between those different video compression formats is
roughly analogous to the difference in the various audio compression
formats that you claim are "all PCM". so i guess all video is PCM,
from your definition.

I was wondering today why we call sound recordings in any format
audio, but only electronic image formats video? Specifically,
as far as I know movies on analog film are not video, but the
sound track on analog film is audio.

For the original question, how about a lossless (such as LZW)
compression of digitized video?

-- glen

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Radium wrote:

On Feb 12, 2:49 pm, "Ron N." wrote:

1) There is more than one format for uncompressed digital
audio (a *lot* more if you have to deal in cross-platform
and legacy format conversion tools).

Would you mind naming one?

libsndfile ( http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/ ) supports
uncompressed audio data stored as :

- unsigned 8 bit ints
- signed 8 bit ints
- signed 16 bit ints
- signed 24 bit ints
- signed 32 bit ints
- 32 bit floats
- 64 bit floats

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Fundamentalists of all faiths are the fundamental evil of our time."
-- Salman Rushdie

[Mr.T]

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hm. Maybe using a bigger disc [about the size of 33-speed phonos] and
400 nm recording/playback lasers [instead of the dirty old red lasers]
would solve the above problems.

What problem? Consumers don't need uncompressed video distribution formats.
Current hard disk sizes are adequate for those involved in the editing
process.

MrT.

[Frank]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:46:58 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

D1 & HDCAM SR were uncompressed component digital video formats.
D2 and D3 were uncompressed composite digital video formats.
All were tape formats, and none was terribly popular nor
did they last very long.

I *strongly* disagree with the use of the past tense in relation to
HDCAM SR.

The HDCAM SR format (as well as plain old HDCAM) is quite alive and
well.

There are some high-end schemes for recording uncompressed
video used in digital cinematography. I believe they are all
hard drive-based, not tape or optical.

In the Sony world, recording is usually done to the SRW-1.

Sony SRW-1 product information
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Model?id=76234

The SRW-1 can be attached directly to the recently-announced F23
camera. No longer any need to drag the SRW-1 around behind the camera,
attached via cable.

Sony F23 press release
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/26744.html

The SDI digital video interconnection scheme used in
broadcast facilities has at least one mode that will
transmit uncompresed (4:4:4) video.

As does HD-SDI (dual-link), but you know, some of us consider 4:2:2
video over SDI, HD-SDI, and HDMI to be uncompressed as well, even
though it's not 4:4:4.

I hope that Radium is happy with his F23/SRW-1. If I were Bill Gates,
I would buy an F23/SRW-1 for everyone who wanted one.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Frank]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:23:09 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:


"Radium" wrote ...
On Feb 12, 7:52 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Radium" wrote ...
Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

How do these video discs looks like? Are they bigger than CDs?

Sony PFD-23 Professional Disc
http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/subcat...fessional-disc

Do they use uncompressed digital video?

No, they don't. They're not able to sustain the required data rate.

If so, where could I possibly find these treasures?

Any pro video dealer will be pleased to sell you some. Here's a B&H
link.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=360348&is=REG

Please note that the B&H Web page referenced above refers to it as a
"hard disk recording medium" when in fact it's an optical medium using
a blue-violet laser similar to, but not identical to, Sony's BD
(Blu-ray Disc) media.

Sony XDCAM HD.

Okay, but it's hardly uncompressed. XDCAM HD is yet another lossy
compressed, long-GOP, interframe-encoded, temporally and spatially
compressed MPEG-2 format.

Don't try to read the price while standing.

XDCAM HD is the poor person's HDCAM, but great for news organizations
capable of adjusting to an IT-based workflow. And the discs ($29.95
each at B&H) are cheap enough to store on a shelf for archival
purposes if necessary.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Frank]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:58:37 GMT, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
"nappy" wrote:


"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 2/12/2007, Frank posted this:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:31:19 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On 2/12/2007, Frank posted this:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:35:44 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On 2/12/2007, Carlos Moreno posted this:
Elan Magavi wrote:

Yes, that is what the OP said. Your reading is excellent.

[...] You're writing is excellent.
^^^^^^^^

Too bad that the same can not be said about you're's... ;-)


Carlos

I think your wrong.

That should be: I think you're wrong.

As in, "I think you are wrong"; "you are" contracts to "you're".

In fact, the same can be said about hi's :-)

Or is it his'?

Oh, I *hate* apostrophes!

Whatever happened to basic education in this country?

No wonder what's her name's baby is the hot news story of the month.


Whatever happened to the idea of humor in this country?

In case you didnt' catch on, m'y response was further satire in response
to Fran'ks satire :-)

I know that, Gene!

Well, then, you are much too subtle for me :-)

You're right. Sometimes I'm too subtle for _myself_. Didn't mean to
offend you in any way.

I think your both beeding a dead herse here.

You've been away, so we'll pardon your misspelling, and at least you
didn't use any apostrophes.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Frank]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:55:14 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

DVCpro50 is compressed 2.5:1

Not to start Yet Another Argument(tm), but DVCPRO50 is compressed
3.3:1.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Martin Heffels]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:29:29 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Of course, we have to wonder where "Radium" thinks he
can get access to any "uncompressed video". I seriously
doubt that he has ever seen it (or likely ever will in his
lifetime.)

Let me make matters a bit more confusing ;-)

Uncompressed video does not come in AVI-kinds of formats.
There is a current batch of professional camera's, which
record to DPX or JPEG2000 image sequences.

Have fun working that one out :-)
--

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank" wrote ...
Sony XDCAM HD.

Okay, but it's hardly uncompressed. XDCAM HD is yet another lossy
compressed, long-GOP, interframe-encoded, temporally and spatially
compressed MPEG-2 format.

Don't try to read the price while standing.

XDCAM HD is the poor person's HDCAM, but great for news organizations
capable of adjusting to an IT-based workflow. And the discs ($29.95
each at B&H) are cheap enough to store on a shelf for archival
purposes if necessary.

I thought XDCAM discs met "Radium"s "CD-like" optical
disc requirement and was sufficiently whizzy and out of
reach to "Radium" that it would satisfy him. Since this is
only a fantasy discussion anyway.

I'd bet that "Radium" couldn't tell the difference between
XDCAM and true raw uncompressed video. I still doubt
that he has ever seen raw uncompressed video. There
being no way of delivering it to consumers.

I just got Sony's demo DVD on the XDCAM HD cameras and
VCRs (are they still called "VCR" using an optical disc? :-)
The quality/price seemed pretty impressive to me.
The footage from shooting the Iditarod was beautiful.

[Arny Krueger]

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
RGB is analog, not digital, so this is not a reasonble question.

Bob Myers says in http://groups.google.com/group/
sci.electronics.basics/msg/bbad436d1cb6cd02?hl=en& :

"RGB simply means "red, green, and blue" video - it clearly can be
represented in either analog or digital form."

It's just a matter of who do you talk to - a practitioner, or a
theoretician.

If you walked into a room with a dozen A/V techs and said: "I have a RGB
signal", they'll think you're talking about an analog signal. If you tell
them "A DVI connector has Red, Green, and Blue signals in digital format",
they'll nod their heads affirmatively because they know that, too. But RGB
has meant analog signals for at least half a century.

In most folks minds:

RGB - analog, whether coax (BNC or RCA), DB9, or HD15.

YUV - analog, coax (BNC or RCA)

DVI - digital, purpose-developed connector

HDMI - digital, purpose-developed connector

[Jerry Avins]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

...

I was wondering today why we call sound recordings in any format
audio, but only electronic image formats video? Specifically,
as far as I know movies on analog film are not video, but the
sound track on analog film is audio.

The sound track is rendered into an electronic signal -- remember the
931 photo tube? -- but the movie image remains optical all the way. I
wouldn't call the soundtrack on the film "audio", bit only the output of
the photo sensor. Just my opinion.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
RGB is analog, not digital, so this is not a reasonble question.

Bob Myers says in http://groups.google.com/group/
sci.electronics.basics/msg/bbad436d1cb6cd02?hl=en& :

"RGB simply means "red, green, and blue" video - it clearly can be
represented in either analog or digital form."

It's just a matter of who do you talk to - a practitioner, or a
theoretician.

OK, I'm a practitioner. What answer do you think I should
give?

Whatever comes naturally. ;-)

If you walked into a room with a dozen A/V techs and said: "I have a RGB
signal", they'll think you're talking about an analog signal.

Of course they will - but that doesn't mean that there aren't other
interfaces that carry video around in RGB form. What SHOULD
I call the color encoding on DVI, if not "RGB"?

DVI's color encoding is via separate Red, Green, and Blue TMDS signals.

[Bob Myers]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
RGB is analog, not digital, so this is not a reasonble question.

Bob Myers says in http://groups.google.com/group/
sci.electronics.basics/msg/bbad436d1cb6cd02?hl=en& :

"RGB simply means "red, green, and blue" video - it clearly can be
represented in either analog or digital form."

It's just a matter of who do you talk to - a practitioner, or a
theoretician.

OK, I'm a practitioner. What answer do you think I should
give?


If you walked into a room with a dozen A/V techs and said: "I have a RGB
signal", they'll think you're talking about an analog signal.

Of course they will - but that doesn't mean that there aren't other
interfaces that carry video around in RGB form. What SHOULD
I call the color encoding on DVI, if not "RGB"?

Bob M.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Richard Crowley wrote:

I'd bet that "Radium" couldn't tell the difference between
XDCAM and true raw uncompressed video. I still doubt
that he has ever seen raw uncompressed video. There
being no way of delivering it to consumers.


Not true! Radium gets perfect reception through his aluminum beanie
cap. His favorite show is "TROLLS-R-US"


--
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

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Radium" wrote ...

"Mr.T" wrote:

Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

It's the old "do the math" game.

30 images a second, with say 720x480 DVD video, 24 bit data words.

345,600 pixels

1,036,800 bytes

31,104,000 bytes per second.

This is a data rate that is almost thinkable for a single PC hard drive.

30 images a second, with say 1920x1080 HD video, 24 bit data words.

2,073,600 pixels

6,220,800 bytes

186,624,000 bytes per second.

RAID array, for sure!

Back in the real world, the most uncompressed video seen outside of a camera
is usually more like M-JPEG w/o i-frames.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Radium" wrote ...

"Mr.T" wrote:

Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

It's the old "do the math" game.

30 images a second, with say 720x480 DVD video, 24 bit data words.

345,600 pixels

1,036,800 bytes

31,104,000 bytes per second.

This is a data rate that is almost thinkable for a single PC hard drive.

30 images a second, with say 1920x1080 HD video, 24 bit data words.

2,073,600 pixels

6,220,800 bytes

186,624,000 bytes per second.

RAID array, for sure!

Back in the real world, the most uncompressed video seen outside of a camera
is usually more like M-JPEG w/o i-frames.

No problem - just buy one of these.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Gene]

Interesting little box, bet there are some really mean
little DSP(s) inside... probably not 386 code...

************* cut-n-paste**************
Can the DiskPacks simply be connected to another computer to access the
data?
The Codex DiskPacks feature proprietary hardware connectors designed for
thousands of connect/disconnect cycles and this precludes them from simply
being connected to any other computer to access this original data.
Moreover, the material on the DiskPacks is not stored in an
industry-standard format (such as DPX frames) but in the camera source's
native output - conversions to DPX, QuickTime, HD video, AVI etc. are done
only when the material is accessed in a Codex system.

Gene




"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Radium" wrote ...

"Mr.T" wrote:

Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

It's the old "do the math" game.

30 images a second, with say 720x480 DVD video, 24 bit data words.

345,600 pixels

1,036,800 bytes

31,104,000 bytes per second.

This is a data rate that is almost thinkable for a single PC hard drive.

30 images a second, with say 1920x1080 HD video, 24 bit data words.

2,073,600 pixels

6,220,800 bytes

186,624,000 bytes per second.

RAID array, for sure!

Back in the real world, the most uncompressed video seen outside of a
camera
is usually more like M-JPEG w/o i-frames.

No problem - just buy one of these.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Radium" wrote ...

"Mr.T" wrote:

Any *uncompressed* digital video equivalent of that good
ole' 80s CD audio?

Certainly not in the consumer arena and very rare in the
professional one.

It's the old "do the math" game.

30 images a second, with say 720x480 DVD video, 24 bit data words.

345,600 pixels

1,036,800 bytes

31,104,000 bytes per second.

This is a data rate that is almost thinkable for a single PC hard drive.

30 images a second, with say 1920x1080 HD video, 24 bit data words.

2,073,600 pixels

6,220,800 bytes

186,624,000 bytes per second.

RAID array, for sure!

Back in the real world, the most uncompressed video seen outside of a
camera
is usually more like M-JPEG w/o i-frames.

No problem - just buy one of these.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

I think I saw something about 20,000 Pounds. I think that was currency, not
weight - right? ;-)

[Norbert Hahn]

"Radium" wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:28 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
It would be nice if there was one single video format as common as CD audio
I guess. The nearest equivalent would obviously be standard DVD, MPEG-II,
but unfortunately you still have the country dependant format variations for
frame size and frame rate etc.

Um, MPEG is compressed. I was looking for uncompressed digital video.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCIR_601

This is closest to raw digital video.

Norbert

[Richard Crowley]

"Norbert Hahn" wrote ...
"Radium" wrote:
"Mr.T" wrote:
It would be nice if there was one single video format as common as CD
audio
I guess. The nearest equivalent would obviously be standard DVD,
MPEG-II,
but unfortunately you still have the country dependant format variations
for
frame size and frame rate etc.

Um, MPEG is compressed. I was looking for uncompressed digital video.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCIR_601

This is closest to raw digital video.

CCIR 601 appears to be 4:2:2 That means that the
chrominance data is compressed 2:1 (Like analog NTSC
is).

Of course DV is compressed 4:1:1 (NTSC) or 4:2:0 (PAL)

[Ron N.]

On Feb 13, 1:09 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Norbert Hahn" wrote ...

"Radium" wrote:
"Mr.T" wrote:
It would be nice if there was one single video format as common as CD
audio
I guess. The nearest equivalent would obviously be standard DVD,
MPEG-II,
but unfortunately you still have the country dependant format variations
for
frame size and frame rate etc.

Um, MPEG is compressed. I was looking for uncompressed digital video.

Have a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCIR_601

This is closest to raw digital video.

CCIR 601 appears to be 4:2:2 That means that the
chrominance data is compressed 2:1

Only if you regard reducing the sample rate as a
form of compression. But then your typical 44.1kHz
audio CD has also likely been reduced in sample rate
from 48 or 96 kHz as recorded in the studio. Is
that compression? Or just an appropriate choice
of filtering and data format?

The chrominance in 601 is reduced to a bandwidth
that better matches the typical human perceptual
bandwidth of the luminance channel.


IMHO. YMMV.

[Richard Crowley]

"Ron N." wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
CCIR 601 appears to be 4:2:2 That means that the
chrominance data is compressed 2:1

Only if you regard reducing the sample rate as a
form of compression.

If it weren't compression, they wouldn't bother doing it.

But then your typical 44.1kHz audio CD has also likely
been reduced in sample rate from 48 or 96 kHz as
recorded in the studio. Is that compression?

Many would say "yes".

Or just an appropriate choice of filtering and data format?

Selecting a sample rate always performs some sort of
"compression". One could argue that setting the sample
rate of audio merely selects what you want your HF
cutoff to be.

OTOH, purposely digitally sub-sampling (or analog band-
width-limiting) the color part of the image is a data-saving
perceptual shell game similar to the lossy compression
done by MP3, AAC, Ogg, et.al.

The chrominance in 601 is reduced to a bandwidth
that better matches the typical human perceptual
bandwidth of the luminance channel.

And yet the casual observer can tell the difference
between full-bandwidth RGB and reduced-color rez
video transmission schemes when viewed side-by-
side.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Selecting a sample rate always performs some sort of
"compression".

Not at all. Compression involves a manipulation of data *within* the range
under consideration. (either lossy compression or lossless)
If extraneous data falls completely outside the required range, then no
compression is necessary within that range.

One could argue that setting the sample
rate of audio merely selects what you want your HF
cutoff to be.

No, there would be no *real* argument at all, since that *is* what it does.

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mr.T" wrote ...

"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
Selecting a sample rate always performs some sort of
"compression".

Not at all. Compression involves a manipulation of data *within* the range
under consideration. (either lossy compression or lossless)
If extraneous data falls completely outside the required range, then no
compression is necessary within that range.

One could argue that setting the sample
rate of audio merely selects what you want your HF
cutoff to be.

No, there would be no *real* argument at all, since that *is* what it
does.


And limiting the bandwidth is a form of "data compression".
It was invented before our grandparents were born in
the days of early telephony.

[Jerry Avins]

Richard Crowley wrote:

...

And limiting the bandwidth is a form of "data compression".
It was invented before our grandparents were born in
the days of early telephony.

Call it data reduction if you wish. "Compression" is generally given a
more restricted meaning.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.


That is also the definition of "Creative recycling". :-)


--
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

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
And limiting the bandwidth is a form of "data compression".
It was invented before our grandparents were born in
the days of early telephony.

No, you are simply misusing the term "compression".
By your definition *everything* that does not include DC-infinity (ie.
everything full stop) is therefore "compressed".
Good luck with getting that generally accepted as a new definition.

MrT.