Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital Audio

Radium wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2:49 pm, "Ron N." <rhnlo...@yahoo.com> 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

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1171340560.223540.156510@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.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.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:46:58 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> 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/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?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_room/b2b/broadcast_production/content_create_edit/release/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/

On Feb 12, 7:46 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "Radium" wrote ...
>
> >  "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> >> It would
> >> also be helpful to reveal WHY you are asking so maybe
> >> we can figure out WHAT you are asking.
>
> > What is the most common type of uncompressed digital video?
>
> What does "type" mean in your world?
> By "common" do you mean historic or current?
>
> > Is it a type of PCM format?
>
> It is likely not defined that way because PCM is usually
> used to refer to audio, not video.
>
> > If not, what is it and why isn't PCM video -- like
> > the PCM audio in CDs -- used?
>
> What does "PCM video" mean in your world?  Does it
> just mean "digital video"?
>
> > Basically, I am looking for the "video equivalent" of CD audio.
>
> 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 would go with D1 as a "video equivalent".  At least at
one time it was popular... on the 2 inches of PCB trace
between the DTV/DVD decoder chip and the video DAC.

As for storing uncompressed formats, didn't amateur radio
types try storing monochrome (very) slow scan video on
audio tape?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:23:09 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> 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/subcategory/recordable-media/professional-media/professional-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/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=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/

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:55:14 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital
Audio>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> 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/

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:29:29 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net>
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 :-)
-- 

"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.

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message 
news:1171333565.064182.32600@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 5:44 am, "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com> 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 

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯