|
|
Posted by Jerry Avins on 10/03/43 11:28
Radium wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
>>I'd wait until someone comes up with a material that is affected by 400
>>nm and nothing else before thinking about what I could accomplish with
>>0.000000000000000000000000000001 bits per second.
>
>
> I never said anything about the bit-rate being
> 0.000000000000000000000000000001 per second.
>
> If you read carefully, I stated the the *bit* rate should be 1 bit per
> second.
>
> It is the *sample* rate that I said should be
> 0.000000000000000000000000000001 Hz.
>
>
>>That's a bit every
>>3,168,808,781 years.
>
>
> No that's a bit every *second*.
>
> Why does everyone I talk to equate *sample* rate with *bit* rate with
> *read* speed? They are three *totally* different things.
>
> I mean no offense in what I write. I just feel I need to clarify what I
> am really trying to say.
>
> bit-rate = sample rate X bit-resolution X pixels
Bit rate and sample rate are related simply in the number of bits in a
sample. If a bucket holds 16 quarts, and the fill rate is one bucket per
minute, how many quarts per minute is that? I suspect that you
1. don't know what a bit is,
2. don't know what a sample is, or
3. can't do arithmetic.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|