Posted by Radium on 11/14/04 11:28

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

[Back to original message]