Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;tballister, post: 45570, member: 5087&quot;]Hmmm.....&nbsp; I can tell I'm not communicating very well.Let me try again, and start with a definition of Bit Error Rate.&nbsp; It is a unit-less ratio of the number of bits received in error divided by the total number of bits received over a given interval, commonly 1 second.For example, the T1 Transmission System ubiquitously deployed throughout the North American telephone system has a bit rate of 1.544 Mbps.&nbsp; If there were 1 bit error in every second the Bit Error Rate would be 6.5E-07.&nbsp; If there were 1 bit in every 10 seconds the error rate would be 6.5E-08, and so on.&nbsp;&nbsp; [In even simpler terms, if the transmission system's bit rate was 1 million bits per second, then 1 error every second would be 1E-06, 1 error every 10 seconds would be 1E-07, and so on].So when I said &quot;Error free, and corrected data are, again by definition, the exact unchanged data originally generated.&quot;, I meant successfully corrected data, and thus a total BER of 0, and thus exactly the picture originally encoded.I stand behind that statement.When I said &quot;There is no omit or better involved. &quot;, I was just trying to introduce a little more preciseness into your statement &quot;Uncorrupted and corrected data will omit errors and thus give a better picture quality, however it is not very noticeable by the average joe, unless he is told what to look for.&quot;When I referred to the word omit I was simply trying to clarify that &quot;Uncorruppted and corrected&quot; data does not have any errors - there is nothing to &quot;leave out&quot;, or &quot;omit&quot; from that data.When I referred the word &quot;better&quot; it was because the impression I took from your words was that somehow the clarity/detail/resolution would somehow improve for correct data, and it was just a bit odd.&nbsp; I mean clarity and/or detail/resolution are characteristics of the coding algorithm and I assumed these are the things you meant about &quot;quality&quot;.&nbsp; Perhaps that word is the root of any misunderstanding, because its a little undefined.You are either error-free, or you are not.- You compression data is not error free when the error rate exceeds the ability of the error correction to restore precisely the original bits.- When this happens at modest levels, blocks of information are lost, resulting in the visual effect that I know as pixellation.- When this happens excessively, well, you know what happens.To say that one more way:- If there are no transmission errors, or the transmission BER is low enough that the errors are correctable, the quality you observe is exactly the quality rendered by the encoder, no more, no less.- In the presence of errors it is not clarity/detail/resolution that suffers, but rather loss of information and thus pixellation, or worse the blank screen, and I submit pixellation is noticeable by every average Joe.If you want to define not seeing pixellation as better quality than seeing pixellation, then I would agree with your statement.&nbsp; But like I said, I generally consider quality to be defined as things like clarity/detail/resoultion, so the statement struck me as a little strange, and I was just trying to help with some clarification.No Big Deal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let's move on...&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p" />opcorn:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="tballister, post: 45570, member: 5087"]Hmmm..... I can tell I'm not communicating very well. Let me try again, and start with a definition of Bit Error Rate. It is a unit-less ratio of the number of bits received in error divided by the total number of bits received over a given interval, commonly 1 second. For example, the T1 Transmission System ubiquitously deployed throughout the North American telephone system has a bit rate of 1.544 Mbps. If there were 1 bit error in every second the Bit Error Rate would be 6.5E-07. If there were 1 bit in every 10 seconds the error rate would be 6.5E-08, and so on. [In even simpler terms, if the transmission system's bit rate was 1 million bits per second, then 1 error every second would be 1E-06, 1 error every 10 seconds would be 1E-07, and so on]. So when I said "Error free, and corrected data are, again by definition, the exact unchanged data originally generated.", I meant successfully corrected data, and thus a total BER of 0, and thus exactly the picture originally encoded. I stand behind that statement. When I said "There is no [I]omit [/I]or [I]better [/I]involved. ", I was just trying to introduce a little more preciseness into your statement "Uncorrupted and corrected data will omit errors and thus give a better picture quality, however it is not very noticeable by the average joe, unless he is told what to look for." When I referred to the word [I]omit [/I] I was simply trying to clarify that "Uncorruppted and corrected" data does not have any errors - there is nothing to "leave out", or "omit" from that data. When I referred the word "better" it was because the impression I took from your words was that somehow the clarity/detail/resolution would somehow improve for correct data, and it was just a bit odd. I mean clarity and/or detail/resolution are characteristics of the coding algorithm and I assumed these are the things you meant about "quality". Perhaps that word is the root of any misunderstanding, because its a little undefined. You are either error-free, or you are not. - You compression data is not error free when the error rate exceeds the ability of the error correction to restore precisely the original bits. - When this happens at modest levels, blocks of information are lost, resulting in the visual effect that I know as [I]pixellation[/I]. - When this happens excessively, well, you know what happens. To say that one more way: - If there are no transmission errors, or the transmission BER is low enough that the errors are correctable, the quality you observe is exactly the quality rendered by the encoder, no more, no less. - In the presence of errors it is not clarity/detail/resolution that suffers, but rather loss of information and thus pixellation, or worse the blank screen, and I submit pixellation is noticeable by every average Joe. If you want to define not seeing pixellation as better quality than seeing pixellation, then I would agree with your statement. But like I said, I generally consider quality to be defined as things like clarity/detail/resoultion, so the statement struck me as a little strange, and I was just trying to help with some clarification. No Big Deal. Let's move on... :popcorn:[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification