In article <XKWdneKkG60xSVXbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@rcn.net>, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:> Radium wrote: > > Hi: > > > > I. Audio vs. Video > > > > Digitized (mono) audio has a single sample per each sampling > > interval. > > Yes. several bits per sample, many samples per second. > > > In the case of digital video, we could treat each individual sample > > point location in the sampling grid (each pixel position in a frame) > > the same way as if it was a sample from an individual (mono) audio > > signal that continues on the same position in the next frame. For > > example, a 640?480 pixel video stream shot at 30 fps would be treated > > mathematically as if it consisted of 307200 parallel, individual mono > > audio streams [channels] at a 30 Hz sample rate. Where does bit- > > resolution enter the equation? > > It might actually make sense to look at it that way in some situations, > but I'll bet you can't think of one.How about a T1 (DS1) stream? It's a series of 8-bit audio samples, with frame sync. Isaac
Questions about equivalents of audio/video and digital/analog.
Started by ●August 19, 2007
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
On 8/20/07 8:14 PM, in article 874pitfujh.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 8/20/07 5:43 PM, in article 876439hg3o.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. >> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: >> >>> nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >>>> On 20 Aug 2007 21:42:18 GMT, Scott Seidman >>>> <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in >>>>> news:87zm0mjrfy.fld@apaflo.com: >>>>> >>>>>>> quantized - a sampled signal, but with the possible levels constrained >>>>>>> to a limited set of values >>>>>> >>>>>> That is by definition a digital siganl. As soon as the possible values >>>>>> are "constrained to a limited set", it is by definition digital data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't this make the output of a D/A converter digital by definition? >>>> >>>> It certainly would. But apparently there are those that can't see the >>>> difference between a limited set of values, and a set of numbers >>>> describing those values. >>> >>> You don't appear to understand that the limited set of values makes >>> it digital, by definition. PERIOD. >>> >>> Of course if you then run that digital PAM signal through virtually >>> any analog channel, it no longer has a limited set of values... >> >> Including a two foot piece of cable, or two inches with a small cap. > > Nope. It would take a fair sized cap. > > Keep in mind that that is *exactly* what a V.90 modem puts on a > regular twisted pair telephone cable, and it works just fine for > a couple miles at least, sometimes even much farther. > > And that signal is digital, and is processed as a digital signal > by the receiving modem.Digital data CSUs and T1 transmitter line signals are digital and look similar to distorted square waves. An all 1's signal looks like a distorted sinewave . Using the same V.90 example....... It will work as well if two v.90 modems are connected back-to-back by a short pair of wires.
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> ... >> >>>> I can >>>> demonstrate a circuit using analog components that >>>> transforms a continuous ramp input into a staircase >>>> output. Moreover, the output levels can be individually >>>> adjusted. Is the output digital? (We're discussing an >>>> arbitrary definition here. There is no wrong answer.) >>> The output is apparenlty analog. At least you have >>> said >>> *nothing* that indicates otherwise. >> Apparently analog but actually digital? That would be in >> keeping with your assertion that quantizing an otherwise >> analog signal digitizes it. > > You *didn't* quantize it. Or at least nothing you said > assures that it has been quantized, and given "levels can > be individually adjusted" is high suggests that it is not > quantized. > >>> Do you think all digital signals are square waves and >>> anything that has square waves is digital? Your example >>> above suggests that you might, but it simply isn't true. >> By old vacuum-tube signal generator was certainly >> analog. It produced square waves among other wave shapes. > > Hot damned, you *are* aware of that. Amazing...You know, Floyd, legal definitions don't always reflect reality. Back in the 50s, the speed limit on Storrow drive in Boston was 35 mph. By law, exceeding 50 mph in a 35 mph zone was statutory reckless driving. To expedite traffic, the police let it be known publicly that they wouldn't give speeding tickets during rush-hour, leaving motorists free to travel up to 50 mph without consequence. One night about 1:00 AM I got a ticket for reckless driving by going 55 mph on an empty road. I pleaded not guilty and offered to plead guilty to speeding. I argued that if 50 mph was perfectly OK on a crowded road, 55 mph wasn't reckless no matter how the law read. I remember the judges words: "You're a little snotnose. I'd love to fine you for speeding, but you're not charged with that. Case dismissed!" I'm still a little snotnose, and partitioning a signal into approximate levels -- because of noise the levels can never be exact -- doesn't make it digital *in fact*, whatever the gummint might declare. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
On Aug 20, 6:40 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 20, 7:15 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > For video the modulation (wing flapping) is not separate from > > the source frequency. If you know you are trying to separate > > wing flapping, it could be done by cutting out whole flap > > cycles, assuming only one bird is in the scene, and is doing > > most of the motion. Otherwise, I don't think there is anything > > you could do. > > I don't want to separate the wing-flapping or anything from the video. > I want all temporal components of the video signal to be slowed > without changing the length or speed of the video. Just like Adobe > Audition and certain voice-changers allow the pitch of the audio > signal to be decreased without changing the length or speed of the > audio.Pitch shifters remove (or duplicate) cycles. For instance, if you have a video of a car driving past a house with six windows in one second, and you slow the video down to half speed it will normally take two seconds to show the complete video. However, if you just chop out of the video portions showing the car between, say, the odd numbered windows of the house, then you can show the jerky left over video in only one second. If you chopped out the odd numbered windows from the pictures of the house, and stretched out the portions with the even numbered windows, then it might look like a car twice as long was driving in front of a house with less windows, or it might look like something Dali or Picasso would draw during a hangover.
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>>> ... A signal can be >>>> quantized without any need to measure it or describe it >>>> with a number. >>> That isn't true. In order to quantize it you *must* >>> decide on non-overlapping ranges of *values*, and a >>> specific quantity value that equates to those values. >>> >>>> An example is the signal being measured >>>> in a quantum Hall-effect experiment. >>> Explain. >> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/qhe.htm > > Why don't you tell us what you think this means. I > have no need to spend my time tracking down your > comments.Live and learn, or live and don't learn. Your choice. I'm indifferent. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 8/20/07 5:43 PM, in article 876439hg3o.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. >> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: >> >>> nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >>>> On 20 Aug 2007 21:42:18 GMT, Scott Seidman >>>> <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in >>>>> news:87zm0mjrfy.fld@apaflo.com: >>>>> >>>>>>> quantized - a sampled signal, but with the possible levels constrained >>>>>>> to a limited set of values >>>>>> That is by definition a digital siganl. As soon as the possible values >>>>>> are "constrained to a limited set", it is by definition digital data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't this make the output of a D/A converter digital by definition? >>>> It certainly would. But apparently there are those that can't see the >>>> difference between a limited set of values, and a set of numbers >>>> describing those values. >>> You don't appear to understand that the limited set of values makes >>> it digital, by definition. PERIOD. >>> >>> Of course if you then run that digital PAM signal through virtually >>> any analog channel, it no longer has a limited set of values... >> Including a two foot piece of cable, or two inches with a small cap. > > Nope. It would take a fair sized cap. > > Keep in mind that that is *exactly* what a V.90 modem puts on a > regular twisted pair telephone cable, and it works just fine for > a couple miles at least, sometimes even much farther. > > And that signal is digital, and is processed as a digital signal > by the receiving modem.The signal is amplified in analog repeaters and again in the modem. Your categories are too hard edged. The very purpose of a modem is converting digital signal to analog that can traverse an analog phone line and back again to digital at the far end. A modem might be the worst example of a purely digital I can imagine. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
isw wrote:> In article <XKWdneKkG60xSVXbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@rcn.net>, > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >> Radium wrote: >>> Hi: >>> >>> I. Audio vs. Video >>> >>> Digitized (mono) audio has a single sample per each sampling >>> interval. >> Yes. several bits per sample, many samples per second. >> >>> In the case of digital video, we could treat each individual sample >>> point location in the sampling grid (each pixel position in a frame) >>> the same way as if it was a sample from an individual (mono) audio >>> signal that continues on the same position in the next frame. For >>> example, a 640?480 pixel video stream shot at 30 fps would be treated >>> mathematically as if it consisted of 307200 parallel, individual mono >>> audio streams [channels] at a 30 Hz sample rate. Where does bit- >>> resolution enter the equation? >> It might actually make sense to look at it that way in some situations, >> but I'll bet you can't think of one. > > How about a T1 (DS1) stream? It's a series of 8-bit audio samples, with > frame sync. > > IsaacAre you Radium in disguise? My bet was with him. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:>On 8/20/07 8:14 PM, in article 874pitfujh.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. >Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: > >> Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On 8/20/07 5:43 PM, in article 876439hg3o.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L. >>> Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >>>>> On 20 Aug 2007 21:42:18 GMT, Scott Seidman >>>>> <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in >>>>>> news:87zm0mjrfy.fld@apaflo.com: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> quantized - a sampled signal, but with the possible levels constrained >>>>>>>> to a limited set of values >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is by definition a digital siganl. As soon as the possible values >>>>>>> are "constrained to a limited set", it is by definition digital data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't this make the output of a D/A converter digital by definition? >>>>> >>>>> It certainly would. But apparently there are those that can't see the >>>>> difference between a limited set of values, and a set of numbers >>>>> describing those values. >>>> >>>> You don't appear to understand that the limited set of values makes >>>> it digital, by definition. PERIOD. >>>> >>>> Of course if you then run that digital PAM signal through virtually >>>> any analog channel, it no longer has a limited set of values... >>> >>> Including a two foot piece of cable, or two inches with a small cap. >> >> Nope. It would take a fair sized cap. >> >> Keep in mind that that is *exactly* what a V.90 modem puts on a >> regular twisted pair telephone cable, and it works just fine for >> a couple miles at least, sometimes even much farther. >> >> And that signal is digital, and is processed as a digital signal >> by the receiving modem. > >Digital data CSUs and T1 transmitter line signals are digital and look >similar to distorted square waves. An all 1's signal looks like a distorted >sinewave .Your point is? (Besides the poor description? They don't look like distorted square waves. The look like only slightly distorted sine waves!)>Using the same V.90 example....... It will work as well if two v.90 modems >are connected back-to-back by a short pair of wires.It won't. They can't talk to each other that way except using v.34 protocols. Regardless, what is your point? I said that v.90 works fine for a couple of *miles*, minimum, so what significance would there be to working "back-to-back by a short pair of wires"? -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>> I can >>>>> demonstrate a circuit using analog components that >>>>> transforms a continuous ramp input into a staircase >>>>> output. Moreover, the output levels can be individually >>>>> adjusted. Is the output digital? (We're discussing an >>>>> arbitrary definition here. There is no wrong answer.) >>>> The output is apparenlty analog. At least you have >>>> said >>>> *nothing* that indicates otherwise. >>> Apparently analog but actually digital? That would be in >>> keeping with your assertion that quantizing an otherwise >>> analog signal digitizes it. >> You *didn't* quantize it. Or at least nothing you said >> assures that it has been quantized, and given "levels can >> be individually adjusted" is high suggests that it is not >> quantized. >> >>>> Do you think all digital signals are square waves and >>>> anything that has square waves is digital? Your example >>>> above suggests that you might, but it simply isn't true. >>> By old vacuum-tube signal generator was certainly >>> analog. It produced square waves among other wave shapes. >> Hot damned, you *are* aware of that. Amazing... > >You know, Floyd, legal definitions don't always reflect >reality.You know Jerry, *technical* definitions are reality. You can fight it all you like, but it won't change the fact that to talk to anyone about this topic *requires* that we all use the same definitions, and the ones that I've cited *are* the standard definitions used by *everyone* that is credible. ...>law read. I remember the judges words: "You're a little >snotnose. I'd love to fine you for speeding, but you're >not charged with that. Case dismissed!" > >I'm still a little snotnose, and partitioning a signal >into approximate levels -- because of noise the levels >can never be exact -- doesn't make it digital *in fact*, >whatever the gummint might declare.You aren't a little snotnose. Your just a little foolish, that's all. Everyone is about something, and that's where you've chosen to make your stand. Regardless of how silly you want to be, it *does* make it digital, by definition. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> ... A signal can be >>>>> quantized without any need to measure it or describe it >>>>> with a number. >>>> That isn't true. In order to quantize it you *must* >>>> decide on non-overlapping ranges of *values*, and a >>>> specific quantity value that equates to those values. >>>> >>>>> An example is the signal being measured >>>>> in a quantum Hall-effect experiment. >>>> Explain. >>> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/qhe.htm >> Why don't you tell us what you think this means. I >> have no need to spend my time tracking down your >> comments. > >Live and learn, or live and don't learn. Your choice. I'm indifferent.I noticed that you have no intention of learning anything. My point was that I see *nothing* on that web page which supports anything you've stated. If you do, be my guest and make an even greater fool of yourself than you have at this point. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
