One image?
That's all I need, but quick!
Thanks!
Full Version: File Sizes
How much MP does one minute of audio take? Video?
One image?
That's all I need, but quick!
Thanks!
One image?
That's all I need, but quick!
Thanks!
1 MP per minute of video or audio. 
Thats pretty good, if you think about it. A high quality 4 minute video can be 100+ megabytes. However much a megapulse is, 1 minute of real life quality video for 1 of them is good.
You do have to assume that the audio is on a spectrum much larger than normal human hearing for those numbers to make sense together.
Or un-Godly high quality.
And it's 60 images / mp.
And it's 60 images / mp.
it's basically arbitrary, because of quality issues. nevermind lossless compression issues. (FLACC for a modern equivalent; die mpeg-3 die!)
yeah, there are canonical values, but they're retarded. 1 minute of video for 1Mp, sure... just please please say that a megapulse is a relative unit of measure, and i'm all set. but for audio, yes, the storage requirement doesn't make sense to current relative sizes. and yeah, there's more DATA going in to a single point as photons compared to the pressure variation at that point, but maybe all SR audio is multi-point recorded, for nifty triangulation effects stuff? just wild-ass-guessing. (with a truly wicked samplerate and bit-depth? oomph!)
now that i think about it, what's the wavelength capacity of a standard vidcam in SR?
yeah, there are canonical values, but they're retarded. 1 minute of video for 1Mp, sure... just please please say that a megapulse is a relative unit of measure, and i'm all set. but for audio, yes, the storage requirement doesn't make sense to current relative sizes. and yeah, there's more DATA going in to a single point as photons compared to the pressure variation at that point, but maybe all SR audio is multi-point recorded, for nifty triangulation effects stuff? just wild-ass-guessing. (with a truly wicked samplerate and bit-depth? oomph!)
now that i think about it, what's the wavelength capacity of a standard vidcam in SR?
| QUOTE (Voorhees) |
| Thats pretty good, if you think about it. A high quality 4 minute video can be 100+ megabytes. However much a megapulse is, 1 minute of real life quality video for 1 of them is good. |
Uncompressed video is about two gigabytes per ten minutes. No use looking for sense in the rules.
And Kenji, I believe you mean MPEG-1 layer 3. MPEG-3 is barely used for anything.
~J
Yes, but compressed video...huh, I could fit about 350 minutes of uncompressed video on my harddrive
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Uncompressed video is about two gigabytes per ten minutes. No use looking for sense in the rules. And Kenji, I believe you mean MPEG-1 layer 3. MPEG-3 is barely used for anything. ~J |
yes, mpeg-1 layer 3. i scarcely even thought of there being an mpeg the third, only a part 3. also, i am dumb.
and... "raw video": you have yet to specify quality level. i can give you video that takes only 1 bit per second. of course, the fidelity is: one pixel, one bit per pixel, one sample per second.
also, i am occasionally a smartass.
The Shadowrun standard for Moving Pictures is probably ~1x10^24 pixels per side, 1Mb per pixel, 240 samples per second. And single pictures are 2x10^24 pixels per side, 1Mb per pixel.
Yes, I'm making shit up, and the numbers are probably nonsensical. But the implication is that the quality of digital video in Shadowrun is almost unlimited.
The audio is indeed a bit problematic.
Yes, I'm making shit up, and the numbers are probably nonsensical. But the implication is that the quality of digital video in Shadowrun is almost unlimited.
The audio is indeed a bit problematic.
well, pixel count can always go up... but a color depth beyond current True Color (assuming a wavelength range of visible light) is already beyond the capabilities of the human eye. nevermind the sample rate. 60Hz is all you need to fool the eye, iirc. or is it 30? i never remember that part. but, the higher the sample rate, the higher the Nyquist, not that that should be an issue with video... but it does point out the fact that the human-equivalent rates are way lower on video than audio. that's something the other way, at least.
i suppose trideo has a pixel width so tiny that it's sufficient to beat the human-standard-vision as well, probably up to a 6-foot screen, just because they can. but does Trideo include infrared, for those thermo folks? do low-light viewers get more out of the increased bit-depth? do elves and orks have an unfair advantage doing jigsaw puzzles? (yes)
---
i suppose if typical audio included the HF stuff, the Nyquist would be so high, that they'd have to set the sample rate really really high.
how high does high frequency hearing go?
i suppose trideo has a pixel width so tiny that it's sufficient to beat the human-standard-vision as well, probably up to a 6-foot screen, just because they can. but does Trideo include infrared, for those thermo folks? do low-light viewers get more out of the increased bit-depth? do elves and orks have an unfair advantage doing jigsaw puzzles? (yes)
---
i suppose if typical audio included the HF stuff, the Nyquist would be so high, that they'd have to set the sample rate really really high.
how high does high frequency hearing go?
| QUOTE (kenji) |
| 60Hz is all you need to fool the eye, iirc. or is it 30? i never remember that part. |
25-30 is the minimum required to create the illusion of fluid animation. Slower than that an your brain is smart enough to realise that is just a series of rapidly changing pictures.
If you are using a CRT screen, then 60Hz will give you a headache if you try and read anything large (and I speak from experience). Reading at 30 would do bad things to your brain and worst things to your eyes.
TV's use about 35 fps, but because they are not as tightly focused as a monitor (ie close up, the pixel smudge into each other) and because you don't sit close, thats all they need to be.
Cinemas projectors run about 60, which is one of the reasons they look better.
Since in Shadowrun the amount of storage required for video never, changes, you can look at this either of two ways:
The fps and quality are constant, and all recording devices use this standard.
or
The frame rate can be increased at the expence of quality (good for cinema/entertainment), and likewise quality can be increased at the expence of frame rate (good for security).
I'm not sure if having 1MP be standard for a minute of either type of data is particularly unreasonable.
Is there a way to compare the informational content of uncompressed analog video to audio, assuming resolution for both is equal? Is it actually true that visual data is, by its nature, more complicated than aural, or is that an assumption we make on the basis that our ability to detect detail visually is greater than out ability to detect detail aurally? (a larger part of our brain is dedicated to doing so, afterall)
I'm certainly not an expert in information theory, but, just thinking about it, it certainly seems to me as if you could measure either video or audio data with theoretically infinite precision. If such is the case, then both video and audio data have theoretically infinite amounts of informational content. The point at which increases in precision of audio recording affect our perception of the sound quality is significantly lower than that in video, but such precision isnt exactly *worthless* -- for example, higher precision audio would be much harder to artificially manufacture or alter audio recordings in such a way as to be indistinguishable from true recordings.
Is there a way to compare the informational content of uncompressed analog video to audio, assuming resolution for both is equal? Is it actually true that visual data is, by its nature, more complicated than aural, or is that an assumption we make on the basis that our ability to detect detail visually is greater than out ability to detect detail aurally? (a larger part of our brain is dedicated to doing so, afterall)
I'm certainly not an expert in information theory, but, just thinking about it, it certainly seems to me as if you could measure either video or audio data with theoretically infinite precision. If such is the case, then both video and audio data have theoretically infinite amounts of informational content. The point at which increases in precision of audio recording affect our perception of the sound quality is significantly lower than that in video, but such precision isnt exactly *worthless* -- for example, higher precision audio would be much harder to artificially manufacture or alter audio recordings in such a way as to be indistinguishable from true recordings.
Redbook (uncompressed) audio: ~760 megabytes for an hour or so.
DV-quality (uncompressed) video: ~2 gigs for ten minutes or so. I'm not entirely certain what resolution that's at, but I'll check and get back to you when I find it.
~J
DV-quality (uncompressed) video: ~2 gigs for ten minutes or so. I'm not entirely certain what resolution that's at, but I'll check and get back to you when I find it.
~J
| QUOTE (Jason Farlander) |
| ...I'm not sure if having 1MP be standard for a minute of either type of data is particularly unreasonable... ...I'm certainly not an expert in information theory, but, just thinking about it, it certainly seems to me as if you could measure either video or audio data with theoretically infinite precision... |
i would assert that video has a higher information density than audio.
from an arbitrary point in space: measuring sound is simply a pressure variance over time. one analog value.
from the same point: measuring video is the incoming photons, of any wavelength or a subset, from any direction or a subset, over time. more dimensions of infinity, which is what i'm basing my guesstimate on.
i don't remember the canon rules but SR vid must be ass-kickin' quality to ensure the post recording enhancement possibilities that i know is possible in the rules (something in rigger if i remember well)... and some possibilitie is that the focus is taken away (mean everything whatever the depth stays sharp...) i'm not a video pro , just some toughts...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.