Hi:

I apologize profusely for my persistance on this topic. Hopefully this
will be the last time -- unless of course, I get even more curious!

>From the responses I've received to my previous, I conclude that both
WMV with 1-bit file size as well as WMV with an object-data bit-rate of
1 bit-per-second are impossible. What about 1-byte-per-second?

Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
byte-per-second?

Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Radium

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

> Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
> 1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
> byte-per-second?

No.

> Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.

Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
for what you're trying to do.

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
> > 1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
> > byte-per-second?
>
> No.
>
> > Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.
>
> Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
> much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
> for what you're trying to do.
>
> Bob M.

The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
required?

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Bob Myers wrote:
>> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
>> > 1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
>> > byte-per-second?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
>> much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
>> for what you're trying to do.
>>
>> Bob M.
>
> The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
> there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
> required?
>

Required for what???????

You need to go to a school where these issues are explained, I suppose. Are
you under 10?

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Bob Myers wrote:
>> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
>> > 1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
>> > byte-per-second?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
>> much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
>> for what you're trying to do.
>>
>> Bob M.
>
> The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
> there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
> required?
>

Look, "the minimum bit-rate" is a subjective quantity.

Long before you get to the lowest bitrate that any
encoder will function at, you would have unrecognizable and
unwatchable video. And the theoretical "minimum bit-rate",
as your threads seem to turn into; is not something that an
encoder could approach.

Your question has no practical value.

Luck;
Ken

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

> The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
> there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
> required?

You appear to be pathologically uninterested in doing any research
other than asking a succession of questions of this group.

Why don't you download a video compressor, and try it
on some images / video sequences. See for yourself what
sort of quality you get at various bit-rates.

Pete Fraser wrote:
>
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1162941554.776680.201180@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > The minimum bit-rate required is so interesting yet so confusing. Is
> > there a mathematical equation in which I can find the lowest bit-rate
> > required?
>
> You appear to be pathologically uninterested in doing any research
> other than asking a succession of questions of this group.
>
> Why don't you download a video compressor, and try it
> on some images / video sequences. See for yourself what
> sort of quality you get at various bit-rates.


HE IS A TROLL! He does this crap all the time.


--
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

Ken Maltby wrote:
> Look, "the minimum bit-rate" is a subjective quantity.
>
> Long before you get to the lowest bitrate that any
> encoder will function at, you would have unrecognizable and
> unwatchable video.

What is the lowest bit-rate that the most flexible video encoder will
function at?

Pete Fraser wrote:
> You appear to be pathologically uninterested in doing any research
> other than asking a succession of questions of this group.

Thats because there is no info available as to how low a bit-rate that
a WMV encoder will tolerate.

> Why don't you download a video compressor, and try it
> on some images / video sequences. See for yourself what
> sort of quality you get at various bit-rates.

WMV compressors aren't available.

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1162937519.518632.216100@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Is it possible to have "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X
> > 1080 progressive scan image, and an "object data" bit-rate of 1
> > byte-per-second?
>
> No.
>
> > Your understanding and cooperation are greatly appreciated.
>
> Yours would be, as well. Think a whole lot more about just how
> much information you can carry in one byte, and what that implies
> for what you're trying to do.
>
> Bob M.

Okay. 1-bit file size wont work. 1-bit-per-second bit-rate is
impossible as well. 1-byte-per-second is anymore capable of existing.
How about "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080
progressive scan image, and an "object data" of 1kbps?

WMA can have a bit-rate of 20 kbps despite having a sample-rate of 44.1
khz. Couldn't WMV also have a bit-rate less than its sample-rate? I
hope so but am SO SO unsure of whether its possible or not.

On 7 Nov 2006 18:01:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

>WMV compressors aren't available.

It shows how bad you've done your research. Any program which can encode
video, can compress to WMV.

-m-
--

On 2006-11-08, Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
> WMA can have a bit-rate of 20 kbps despite having a sample-rate of 44.1
> khz.

Actually, all of the standard 20 kbps WMA files have maximum of
32 kHz sample rate.

-Pasi
--
/She was not one of those fool women who tossed their brains at a man's
feet along with their hearts. It was just that sometimes, near him,
thinking clearly became a trifle difficult. That was all./
-- Min in The Wheel of Time:"A Crown of Swords"

Pasi Ojala wrote:
> Actually, all of the standard 20 kbps WMA files have maximum of
> 32 kHz sample rate.

Not necessarily. My Adobe Audtion 1.5 allows me to make a WMA file
whose bit-rate is 20 kbps while its sample-rate is 44.1 khz.

If it can be done with audio, then why not with video?

I don't understand why its physically-impossible to have a "Real WMV"
format with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080 progressive scan image,
and "object data" bit-rate of 20 kbps.

"Radium" wrote ...
> Pete Fraser wrote:
>> You appear to be pathologically uninterested in doing any research
>> other than asking a succession of questions of this group.
>
> Thats because there is no info available as to how low a bit-rate that
> a WMV encoder will tolerate.

What happened when you tried it?

>> Why don't you download a video compressor, and try it
>> on some images / video sequences. See for yourself what
>> sort of quality you get at various bit-rates.
>
> WMV compressors aren't available.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...r/default.mspx

Duh?

"Radium" wrote...
> Okay. 1-bit file size wont work. 1-bit-per-second bit-rate is
> impossible as well. 1-byte-per-second is anymore capable of existing.
> How about "Real WMV", with 148.50 mhz sample-rate, 1920 X 1080
> progressive scan image, and an "object data" of 1kbps?

How many frames per hour were you thinking of?

> WMA can have a bit-rate of 20 kbps despite having a sample-rate of 44.1
> khz. Couldn't WMV also have a bit-rate less than its sample-rate? I
> hope so but am SO SO unsure of whether its possible or not.

Why don't you just try it and find out directly instead of trolling for
2nd hand opinions from the rest of us?