"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the sorry
state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John


Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one megabyte
picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get it down to
seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that can reduce the
data by a 1000 fold.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the sorry
state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one megabyte
picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get it down to
seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that can reduce the
data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB
or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the
sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get
it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that
can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.


Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking on the
same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband internet
connection, I've seen some material that still takes a noticeable time to
download.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've heard
about a digital image transmission mode.


Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind) digitally
encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will occasionally jerk and
pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud for the HF bands so as not to
consume too much bandwidth, that would become even jerkier.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB or
FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now inexpensive, and
fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows the
inherent problems.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width to be
practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and shows a
total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically possible and
therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform others and, the
sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud. To get
it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption techniques that
can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as the
analog method of SSTV.



Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking on the
same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband internet
connection, I've seen some material that still takes a noticeable time to
download.


Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've heard
about a digital image transmission mode.



Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind) digitally
encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will occasionally jerk and
pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud for the HF bands so as not to
consume too much bandwidth, that would become even jerkier.

Very true.

Accepted minimum rate for a recognizable "talking head" type video is
32Kbit/second.

I made a test jpg image @ 640 by 480, level 5 (unacceptable for me, but
others may find that okay) Typical scene, some amateurs sitting around a
radio, no large expanses of sky. It was 553.6 Kbits.

Assuming that the transmission rate would be similar to Packet radio at
..3Kbit/second it is obvious that video would be impossible to do live,
and grossly impractical to do as say an mpeg.

That 640 by 480 jpeg might be within the realm of feasibility at just
around 31 minutes. Note that this does not include error checking lags.
And there will be errors.

Note that these are very rough calculations.


Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than SSB or
FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now inexpensive, and
fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -


I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows the
inherent problems.

Yeah, like I said 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to begin
and what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

.... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the same
boat and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such
things...

.... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested in
video conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable and
even lack the basic concept of how it is done!

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width
to be practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and
shows a total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically
possible and therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform
others and, the sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in
general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud.
To get it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption
techniques that can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as
the analog method of SSTV.



Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get
the bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still
talking on the same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast
broadband internet connection, I've seen some material that still
takes a noticeable time to download.


Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.



Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind)
digitally encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will
occasionally jerk and pause. If you have to slow it down to 300
baud for the HF bands so as not to consume too much bandwidth, that
would become even jerkier.

Very true.

Accepted minimum rate for a recognizable "talking head" type video
is 32Kbit/second.

I made a test jpg image @ 640 by 480, level 5 (unacceptable for me,
but others may find that okay) Typical scene, some amateurs sitting
around a radio, no large expanses of sky. It was 553.6 Kbits.

Assuming that the transmission rate would be similar to Packet radio
at .3Kbit/second it is obvious that video would be impossible to do
live, and grossly impractical to do as say an mpeg.

That 640 by 480 jpeg might be within the realm of feasibility at
just around 31 minutes. Note that this does not include error
checking lags. And there will be errors.

Note that these are very rough calculations.


Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than
SSB or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -


I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows
the inherent problems.

Yeah, like I said 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to begin and
what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the same boat
and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such things...

... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested in video
conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable and even lack
the basic concept of how it is done!

John


OK, SHOW US THE MATH that it can be done on HF within 300 baud. We've
already got real time video with audio on VHF and higher but show me it can
be done. Explain in detail the encryption/decryption method. And so on.

As an engineer, I can follow the math if you can post it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

The only person talking 300 baud is you, I told you to throw away that
300 baud modem and get a decent one (or revamp an old phone modem to
your needs.)

Since you didn't even understand that, you certainly won't grasp the
rest...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to
begin and what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the
same boat and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such
things...

... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested
in video conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable
and even lack the basic concept of how it is done!

John


OK, SHOW US THE MATH that it can be done on HF within 300 baud.
We've already got real time video with audio on VHF and higher but
show me it can be done. Explain in detail the encryption/decryption
method. And so on.

As an engineer, I can follow the math if you can post it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

Yes, that quite well proves you don't even have a clue where to begin
and what would be a practical method to accomplish it...

... don't feel alone, these ancient brain deads here are in the same
boat and have ran off and ****ed off all those who can do such
things...

... at first I just thought you guys were probably not interested in
video conferance by radio--now I find out you are simply unable and
even lack the basic concept of how it is done!

Elucidate! I wait.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee:

My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot
tell the difference.

If I send perfect video, encrypted off a DVD you will indeed notice
that it slows, pauses and is not acceptable for broadcast--however, if
you encrypt the sound to mp3 and the video to avi it becomes childs
play for anyone who is technically savvy and results in video and
audio which is magnitudes faster than SSTV.

Get away from these ancient amateurs who have gone blind and ask where
it has "ALREADY BEEN BEING DONE FOR A DECADE!!!"

Standing there looking stupid is no way to go through life girl!

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee wrote, "... only fax and SSTV have a small enough band width
to be practical."

That is not only a ridiculous statement, it is preposterous and
shows a total lack of knowledge of the state of data compaction.

However, it proves you are not aware of what is technically
possible and therefore are in a poor position to advise or inform
others and, the sorry state of amateurs technical savvy in
general!

John



Ok then, show me the math that demonstrates you can transmit a one
megabyte picture in seconds on the HF bands using only 300 baud.
To get it down to seconds requires data compression/encryption
techniques that can reduce the data by a 1000 fold.

Obviously, images can be transmitted by digital modes as well as
the analog method of SSTV.


Digital images would have to be compressed/encrypted also to get the
bandwidth down to acceptable ranges for HF and we're still talking
on the same order of magnitude to do so. Even with a fast broadband
internet connection, I've seen some material that still takes a
noticeable time to download.

Is that a good way of transmitting the image? It can be. Seems I've
heard about a digital image transmission mode.


Isn't most of the stuff off the internet (mpg comes to mind)
digitally encoded. Even on my broadband connection it will
occasionally jerk and pause. If you have to slow it down to 300 baud
for the HF bands so as not to consume too much bandwidth, that would
become even jerkier.

Does that make the Analog SSTV mode obsolete? No more obsolete than
SSB or FM. It is a fairly quick mode, and with a computer is now
inexpensive, and fun.

I'm looking forward to an education on the modes from someone with
technical savvy. Mr Smith?


- Mike KB3EIA -

I doubt if he's got the technical savvy. Simple arithmetic shows
the inherent problems.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: "John Smith" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 12:25

Dee:

My "simple math" is actually just your "simple mind" and you cannot
tell the difference.

Dee is smart. But, her emotional LOVE of "CW" over-rides her
reasoning ability.

If I send perfect video, encrypted off a DVD you will indeed notice
that it slows, pauses and is not acceptable for broadcast--however, if
you encrypt the sound to mp3 and the video to avi it becomes childs
play for anyone who is technically savvy and results in video and
audio which is magnitudes faster than SSTV.

Get away from these ancient amateurs who have gone blind and ask where
it has "ALREADY BEEN BEING DONE FOR A DECADE!!!"

Actually, FOUR decades. The Bell Systems' video telephone.

There's a lot of its history on the Internet. I can dig up
the URL from an archive CD which has digitization of Bell
Labs documents in it...but, it's no use taking the trouble
because the "CW" LOVERS in here won't have any of it.

This dial-up modem I and hundreds of thousands of others are
using sends/receives (full duplex) 56K rates in a 3 KHz BW.
To follow the "simple arithmetic rules" (from Carson's
series equations), the telephone bandwidth "should be"
about 100 KHz! Obviously it isn't. 100 KHz BW down to fit
in a 3 KHz BW! :-)

MPEG4 compression-expansion for real-time video is quite alive
and well on our Comcast cable digital feed. About 230 TV
channels in the bandwidth (digitally encoded) where we had only
about 60+ in analog form. BTW, that includes the DTV already
broadcast which is also on the same digital cable feed...and
DTV already has over 3:1 compression to fit inside an alloted
6 MHz BW. [more pixels than analog equivalent but an exact
number will bring out those nasty nit-pickers who will midsdirect
the thread into some "never ending story" about compression]

Military small-unit field radios have, for two decades, used
digitized VOICE that fits inside a 3 KHz BW, with or without
encryption. Standard COMSEC, either internal (built-in) or
external as a peripheral unit.

There's lots more examples of digitization and compression,
from license-free FRS toy walkie-talkies to the 2.4 GHz cordless
phones to tens, no hundreds of thousands of WLANs at work and
at home, all cramming lots of data into less bandwidth than
thought possible...carrying with it real-time video from closed
circuit TV cameras and (analog) wide-band music. Hundreds of
texts available at Amazon on the subject.

"CW" LOVERS will have NONE of that. Their snarly tones are like
the old Spark signals...growly and taking up bandwidth equal to
all of 75 meters.

Standing there looking stupid is no way to go through life girl!

There's no accounting for taste when emotionalism over the
narrowbanded amateur "CW" LOVE pushes aside logical reasoning.

None of the "CW" LOVERS in here will have any of it until the
ARRL anoints the subject with a papal Sumner blessing. Amen.