A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old August 11th 18, 06:19 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


I don't know much about photography films.


clearly.

And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!


yep.

But isn't film molecular level?


everything is.


Is your claim based on traditional size of film, which is 135?


size doesn't change anything. film is very lossy and much less accurate
than digital.

But why can't we use a bigger film then?


we can. there are larger film sizes, namely medium format and large
format, but then you also have to use a larger digital sensor to match.

Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


always the same size format. otherwise it's not a valid comparison.
Ads
  #47  
Old August 11th 18, 06:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in newskn432$pvc$1
@toylet.eternal-september.org:

On 8/11/2018 10:47 PM, Stephen wrote:
[]

The original capture format is "not lossy"
- in the sense that you have all the info you are ever going to get.
- however that is really a theoretical thing, since sensors are not
ideal, and there will be colour and brightness distortins, or effects
from adjacent pixels, timing errors.

Once you have a source then it can be compressed.


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?

BTW, I am thinking about court use....

Even film is not 'lossless' in reference to capturing all the information
in an image. In this case the limitation is physical. A camera lense can
only resolve a certain amount of the incoming image, due to the fact it
is 'compressing' the image to fit the film format (35mm, 120, 70mm, etc).
Then the film has a limit due to its formulation due to the size of the
individual 'grains' in the emulsion. The finer grained the emulsion, the
more detail that can be captured. That is why two photos of the same
scene can have very different amounts of detail captured.

Then, there is a small amount of loss when a photographic image is
copied. Each 'generation' of copying results in some loss of resolution
(data). In real life it usually isn't noticeable except at larger
magnifications, such as accurs in watching a movie in a theatre, or when
parts of the image are 'blown up' into a larger format.

So yes, in court use, the closer one can get to the original image
captured the better one is. That is why 'chain of possession' is such an
important part of evidence.
  #48  
Old August 11th 18, 07:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default how original is an original image?

On 8/12/2018 1:46 AM, Tim wrote:

So yes, in court use, the closer one can get to the original image
captured the better one is. That is why 'chain of possession' is such an
important part of evidence.


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!

And which pair(s) of human eyes should we use out of billions to make
the decision?

Oh well... the topic is becoming "just trust someone but not me"!

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #49  
Old August 11th 18, 07:08 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default how original is an original image?

In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!


the reference is the original
  #50  
Old August 11th 18, 07:16 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,sci.electronics.basics,alt.comp.freeware
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default how original is an original image?

On 8/12/2018 2:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!


the reference is the original


In a court trial, how do you do that? You cannot take the physical
reality into a court... there is also the time factor. Whatever happened
in reality might not repeat itself before the court.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #51  
Old August 11th 18, 07:24 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Keith Nuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,844
Default how original is an original image?

On 8/11/2018 2:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!


the reference is the original
It is my understanding that when an electronic image is modified it can

be detected by studying the pixel arrangement in the file.

Therefore if you have an electronic image of the original document that
was made from the original document then it is close as you can get to
the original with out having the original. Unless when the file is
examined by an expert they detect fragments in the pixel that indicate
the images was modified.

There is one problem with the above statement If you are holding the
original document, you can see if any pertinent notes were made on the
reverse. Unless otherwise note on the front page you would have no way
of know the note existed from an image of the front page.

For anything but legal evidence presented to a court, If I would not
worry about how close an image is to the original.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
  #52  
Old August 11th 18, 10:07 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:50:41 -0400, Paul wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!


The "formats" part can be broken down into two pieces.

The outside part is the "container".
.mkv , .mov , .avi are containers

Inside the container are video and audio codecs.

SNIP

Hi Paul, I know what you wanted to say but that last part didn't come
out right. There are no codecs inside the container. That would be quite
inefficient. ;-)

Otherwise, excellent summary.

  #53  
Old August 11th 18, 10:11 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default how original is an original image?

On 8/12/2018 2:56 AM, Wolf K wrote:

Considering that many people can't tell the difference between vertical
and horizontal phone-videos, passing off fakes is easy anyhow. However,
AI created fake videos have a problem with eyes: we blink, the blink
rate varies with how we feel about we're saying, and current AI
techniques can't fake natural blinks. Yet.


Then you need to look at the video frame-by-frame? Need a prolonged
trial then, for just viewing the video evidences carefully ...

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #54  
Old August 11th 18, 10:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In message , Stephen
writes:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 04:13:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(And thanks Paul as well.)

In message , Tim
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most
of the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for
audio?

[]

The original capture format is "not lossy"
- in the sense that you have all the info you are ever going to get.
- however that is really a theoretical thing, since sensors are not
ideal, and there will be colour and brightness distortins, or effects
from adjacent pixels, timing errors.


Good point, but I was talking about conversion between different video
file formats.
[]
I have not noticed any degredation doing file conversions, but I am
basically measuring with Mark I eyeball, so precision is probably low.


Oh, still using the MkI? (-:

All video file formats can be and usually are compressed in some fashion.
Depending on the compression method used it can be lossless or lossy. A
data stream using lossy compression has already thrown away some
information, and as such is already degraded from the original. Transcoding
from one lossy format to another will lose some information, the amount of
the loss will depend on how lossy the compressions used are. In this it is


I don't think that's _necessarily_ so, if the conversion is just a
repackaging, or the second compression uses the same algorithm and
settings as the first. But what I was really asking about was that
someone (actually I think two someones - they've been snipped now)
listed a lot of conversions, and there was no indication whether any of
them were lossless (i. e. resulted in no _further_ degradation).

similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.


Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!

There will always be some further distortion in signal since the
compression already done will have added compromises in signal from
the original, so you are further from an "ideal picture" starting
point.


Although not quite true (see above), it's probably best to assume that
yes, any further conversions do degrade. I'm a little saddened that
there seems little interest in establishing where the is _not_ the case,
though.
[]
- last time I was involved the favorite at 1 place was JPEG2000 - the
wavelet oriented schemes seem to degrade more gracefully and survive
multiple passes with less overall impact.


Interesting. Not one you hear of much these days.

A heavily compressed stream being recompressed to a different format
seems to generate more artifacts - ie the 2 compression systems can
interact to give more artefacts and distrotion in the resulting output


Yes, I'd have expected that.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")
  #55  
Old August 11th 18, 10:53 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Stephen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:15:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Stephen
writes:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 04:13:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(And thanks Paul as well.)

In message , Tim
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most
of the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for
audio?
[]

The original capture format is "not lossy"
- in the sense that you have all the info you are ever going to get.
- however that is really a theoretical thing, since sensors are not
ideal, and there will be colour and brightness distortins, or effects
from adjacent pixels, timing errors.


Good point, but I was talking about conversion between different video
file formats.
[]
I have not noticed any degredation doing file conversions, but I am
basically measuring with Mark I eyeball, so precision is probably low.


Oh, still using the MkI? (-:

All video file formats can be and usually are compressed in some fashion.
Depending on the compression method used it can be lossless or lossy. A
data stream using lossy compression has already thrown away some
information, and as such is already degraded from the original. Transcoding
from one lossy format to another will lose some information, the amount of
the loss will depend on how lossy the compressions used are. In this it is


I don't think that's _necessarily_ so, if the conversion is just a
repackaging, or the second compression uses the same algorithm and
settings as the first. But what I was really asking about was that
someone (actually I think two someones - they've been snipped now)
listed a lot of conversions, and there was no indication whether any of
them were lossless (i. e. resulted in no _further_ degradation).

similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.


Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!

There will always be some further distortion in signal since the
compression already done will have added compromises in signal from
the original, so you are further from an "ideal picture" starting
point.


Although not quite true (see above), it's probably best to assume that
yes, any further conversions do degrade. I'm a little saddened that
there seems little interest in establishing where the is _not_ the case,
though.
[]
- last time I was involved the favorite at 1 place was JPEG2000 - the
wavelet oriented schemes seem to degrade more gracefully and survive
multiple passes with less overall impact.


Interesting. Not one you hear of much these days.


Because the compression is done frame by frame and keeps more info -
so lower comression ratios.

"lossless" JPEG will reduce a 1.5 Gbps HD uncompressed 1080i video
stream to maybe 300 Mbps.

A lossy JPEG trades off "quality"for compression like any of the other
systems - but the systems I worked on had a sweet spot for the types
of sources around 20 - 50 Mbps.

distribution systems with more limited bandwdith like TV and DVD need
higher compression, so JPEG isnt a good choice.

A heavily compressed stream being recompressed to a different format
seems to generate more artifacts - ie the 2 compression systems can
interact to give more artefacts and distrotion in the resulting output


Yes, I'd have expected that.
[]


Agreed.
But it seems to hold true even where different versions of the same
compression family are used.

You probably have more room to improve the results if you are not
having to deal with a real time stream (where you only get to do a
single pass unless you are adding a lot of delay).

--
Stephen
  #56  
Old August 12th 18, 01:06 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
John Larkin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default film vs CMOS

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 00:54:04 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

On 8/12/2018 12:50 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?


film is more lossy than digital.


I don't know much about photography films. And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

But isn't film molecular level?


Film is quantized to grain size.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

  #57  
Old August 12th 18, 01:08 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:50:41 -0400, Paul wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!

The "formats" part can be broken down into two pieces.

The outside part is the "container".
.mkv , .mov , .avi are containers

Inside the container are video and audio codecs.

SNIP

Hi Paul, I know what you wanted to say but that last part didn't come
out right. There are no codecs inside the container. That would be quite
inefficient. ;-)

Otherwise, excellent summary.


Yeah, that should have been "video and audio streams".

Paul
  #58  
Old August 12th 18, 04:17 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/12/2018 1:19 AM, nospam wrote:

Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


always the same size format. otherwise it's not a valid comparison.


In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #59  
Old August 12th 18, 04:22 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


always the same size format. otherwise it's not a valid comparison.


In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!


you're the one making comparisons.

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.


what if you stopped posting rubbish?
  #60  
Old August 12th 18, 04:25 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/12/2018 11:22 AM, nospam wrote:

In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!


you're the one making comparisons.

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.


what if you stopped posting rubbish?


Well, calm down... professor!? Let's continue later.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.