"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:dfGdnQaykdb2e0zYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...> > "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.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.
Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital Audio
Started by ●February 12, 2007
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message news:mwmAh.178$EV1.70@news.cpqcorp.net...> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message > news:dfGdnQaykdb2e0zYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "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. > > 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.
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
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
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:53cqvbF1s2fedU1@mid.individual.net...> "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.
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:> >"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message >news:53cqvbF1s2fedU1@mid.individual.net... >> "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
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
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" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:45d201ac.1309307609@news.plus.net...> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message >>news:53cqvbF1s2fedU1@mid.individual.net... >>> "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
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:45d201ac.1309307609@news.plus.net...> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message >>news:53cqvbF1s2fedU1@mid.individual.net... >>> "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? ;-)
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> 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
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
"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)
Reply by ●February 13, 20072007-02-13
On Feb 13, 1:09 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> 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 2:1Only 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.
