What I want "Real WMV", 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan image, lowest-possible

[Radium]

Hi:

Let me explain why I want "Real WMV", 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
1080 progressive scan image, with an "object data" whose bit-rate is
the minimum possible. I like the audio artifacts associated with a
monoaural WMA audio file whose sample-rate is at least 44.1 khz [and
whose audio had the same sample-rate when uncompressed* as after
compression] but whose bit-rate is low enough to cause audible
artifacts. I would like to see the video-equivalent of these artifacts.
That is why I am so interested in this.

Lets say I have "Real WMV" file with a 148.50 mhz sample-rate and 1920
X 1080 progressive scan image. How much would I have to compress the
color-depth to see the video-equivalent of WMA audio artifacts? How
would the artifacts look like.

*The uncompressed version of the video should be have the same
sample-rate [at least 148.50 mhz] and same image-resolution [at least
1920 X 1080 progressive scan (I don't want interlacing)]. However, the
uncompressed form of the video should have a color-depth of at least
32-bit. I dislike visual artifacts of uncompressed video caused by
insufficient color-depth, sample-rate or image-resolution -- much like
I dislike audio artifacts of uncompressed audio caused by insufficient
bit-resolution or sample-rate.

I still dislike all forms of compression excluding WMA [for audio] and
*real *WMV [for video].


Regards,

Radium

 

[Martin Heffels]

Lets say I have "Real WMV" file with a 148.50 mhz sample-rate and 1920
X 1080 progressive scan image. How much would I have to compress the
color-depth to see the video-equivalent of WMA audio artifacts? How
would the artifacts look like.

Again, this is something which you can find out yourself with some footage
and an encoder. Do you expect _us_ to do that for you? I can do it, but it
will cost you. So you either pay me, or somebody else to do this for you,
or you try yourself, in your own time, in your own money.

-m-
--

 

[Bob Myers]

Lets say I have "Real WMV" file with a 148.50 mhz sample-rate and 1920
X 1080 progressive scan image. How much would I have to compress the
color-depth to see the video-equivalent of WMA audio artifacts? How
would the artifacts look like.

Since "compress the color depth" is a completely meaningless
phrase, no one can answer the question. You compress video data
in a number of ways - none of which simply isolate one randomly-chosen
parameter and then attempt to "compress" it.

Bob M.

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Bob Myers" wrote ...

...


Since "compress the color depth" is a completely meaningless
phrase, no one can answer the question. You compress video data
in a number of ways - none of which simply isolate one randomly-chosen
parameter and then attempt to "compress" it.

Over in the audio newsgroup, he is a big fan of squashing
all his stereo recordings to monaural. This individual is
cerainly at least 3-sigma from norm, maybe 4.

Further "discussion" seems pointless as he seems impervious
to learning anything despite his stated objective of collecting
the "wisdom of the experts".

 

[Jim Leonard]

Let me explain why I want "Real WMV", 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
1080 progressive scan image, with an "object data" whose bit-rate is
the minimum possible. I like the audio artifacts associated with a
monoaural WMA audio file whose sample-rate is at least 44.1 khz [and
whose audio had the same sample-rate when uncompressed* as after
compression] but whose bit-rate is low enough to cause audible
artifacts. I would like to see the video-equivalent of these artifacts.
That is why I am so interested in this.

The method of compression used in WMA files is completely different
than that used for WMV files, and furthermore is not applicable to
video data. So no such comparison can be made.

The closest equivalent, if it will stop this trolling, is that of
H.263. You know what those artifacts look like, so you know what WMVs
made with WMA compression would look like if it were magically
possible.

So now you know: Can you please stop this idiocy now?

 

[Radium]

The method of compression used in WMA files is completely different
than that used for WMV files

I've known that for a long time. That is why, in thread I use the term
"Real WMV" not just "WMV".

By "Real WMV", I am referring to is the exact video-equivalent of WMA.
Sadly for me, this real-WMV does not exist and will not exist unless I
make it myself -- which is a task that I have inadequate time, money,
patience, and energy for.

 

[Radium]

I've known that for a long time. That is why, in thread I use the term
"Real WMV" not just "WMV".

By "Real WMV", I am referring to is the exact video-equivalent of WMA.
Sadly for me, this real-WMV does not exist and will not exist unless I
make it myself -- which is a task that I have inadequate time, money,
patience, and energy for.

My apologies.

I forgot to read your entire message before posting this.

 

[Bob Myers]

By "Real WMV", I am referring to is the exact video-equivalent of WMA.

Which is a totally nonsensical notion, for reasons that apparently
you have no interest in learning.

Bob M.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

"Bob Myers" wrote ...


Over in the audio newsgroup, he is a big fan of squashing
all his stereo recordings to monaural. This individual is
cerainly at least 3-sigma from norm, maybe 4.

Geez, Richard, you forgot to mention in which direction! How could you?
Now I'm forced to guess.