|
That is bizarre.
The way it really works... (well, in the real world--probably NOT amateur radio grin) You read the bytes from the ccd camera at 30 fps (or 10, or 20, or whatever) Process this digital data as you please, format, snip, enhance, etc--compress/encrypt and send the bytes (8, 16, or 32+ bit words) at the fps you would like, but equal to or less than the fps read from the ccd cam and in sync with what the receiver expects or can handle. At the receiving end, you uncompress the bytes and send them to the video card. You watch the picture on the monitor. .... end of story ... You would really have to work at it to make it harder than that, or lack sufficient understanding. John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: "Amateur TV" or SSTV is dead, replaced by much newer technology which, it seems, most hams are ignorant of and have not implemented yet (you can still see SSTV in museums run by private hams--i.e, their "radio shack" and in current use by a few "dinosaur hams.") Okay, John, I understand completely where you are coming from. I ask for no more. It is interesting that "John Smith" made the same error that Len made some time ago. Amateur TV and SSTV are not at all the same thing. For that matter, neither are dead. ATV is quite alive and SSTV is simply implemented differently, via the use of soundcards. Correct. SSTV is hardly TV at all, being still images. And ATV is indeed the transmission of moving images, and there is a very good reason that it is at UHF frequencies. This link may be of some help: http://news-server.org/n/ny/nyquist_...g_theorem.html - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net... Hey Kim.....so what?.....At least I didn't pay (how many bux???) for a callsign that brings sham on yourself. How you like that? Dan/W4NTI "shame" Kim W5TIT |
|
|
|
Len:
I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... .... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am Dee: If one ever gets serious about using HF for video, and HS data transmission, this: http://www.thiecom.de/english/?g313i/ is an excellent investment. The digital signal can be pulled directly off the PCI bus in the computer and fed to software. This company supplies the software framework for just about anything you can imagine, if you know how to code or know someone who does--the sky is the limit... John, lots of us know of data compression and maybe a few radio amateurs will acknowledge the elegant work of Claude Elwood Shannon back in 1947. But, that is really NOT the issue in here. Status quondam is the issue. Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2 times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times. The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code" is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have no Variety] Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as- when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch. Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test. A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" That was during the successful testing phase of DRM. The same group also decried GMDSS as "unworkable!" even though the maritime community had already researched and tested it and approved it worldwide. Morse code on 500 KHz MUST continue they said, ignoring what the SOLAS folks had already determined. The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Effects of selective fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put many signals on a given band without any mutual interference. The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that. They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band audio. The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand "already- done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to "demonstrate" that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the sandbox. Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group. Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for "radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing). Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something different. Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks. Big Brother in the NE will protect them. Offshore designers and makers will provide they radio toys, all their bells and whistles. :-( "Shannon's Law?" Ain't in Part 97. Fergit it... |
John Smith wrote:
Len: I finally figured out why they truly hate you here! You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday-- they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Who is "they", John? I don't hate anybody on rrap. I like some more than others but "hate" is too strong a word. The problem you, Len and a few others share is simple: You have confused the destination with the journey. |
"John Smith" wrote You have made a statement that cw is ridiculous and protested by never getting an amateur license--now there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands who have joined you--I see them everyday--they refuse to get a license because of the code... ... that is why they hate you, you were a man before your time my friend! And, your protest is being voiced by a strong majority today. Literally billions and billions of people worldwide have joined Len in protest by never applying for an amateur license --- untold billions! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have CB sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have FRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have GMRS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have MURS sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have marine VHF sets! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have cordless phones! Literally billions and billions of people worldwide do not have any sort of "wireless" communications! What an impressive protest, people before their time! dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2 times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times. That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to change regulations in something in which you are not remotely involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code" is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have no Variety] What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio. You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it all wrong". You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't intentionally funny. Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as- when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch. Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test. It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for several years. It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability. Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the third world where price, battery power and portability are prime requirements. I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM stereo and 8-track tapes. How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and video? A bit of difference there maybe? A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!" They did? Name them. Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like audio. Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth. How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5 KHz? The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio bandwidths is eminently possible on HF. Of course. Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one station or when a group of stations desires to converse roundtable-style. Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically. Effects of selective fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put many signals on a given band without any mutual interference. The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that. They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band audio. The scaling isn't the problem, wizened one. For video and images it is. The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand "already- done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to "demonstrate" that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the sandbox. You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come up with a pass to enter the park. Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we can use methods that use more bandwidth. I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and digital images on HF? Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper interfaces. Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use. IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances. Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum might have something to say about it also! 8^) Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group. Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for "radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing). Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something different. Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks. Big Brother in the NE will protect them. Does complex and newer equal better? Is analog simpler than digital? Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a digital expert? I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there is to offer. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com