Posted by PTravel on 01/12/28 11:52

"Martin Heffels" <youwishyouwouldknow@nottellinya.com> wrote in message
news:5dc5b2pf8sgoeq1n67vlv3s7p4obof806v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:55:14 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
>>We're still talking about apples and oranges -- data reconstructed using
>>ECC
>>is accurate and bit-for-bit what was recorded (or supposed to have been
>>recorded). Replacing pixels (or scan lines or averaging blocks) results
>>in
>>lost data.
>
> Nooooooo, it is not :-) Again, in this case there are several steps of
> error-correction, which vary from flipping a bit into it's correct
> posotion, to borrowing data from surrounding compression-blocks, to
> borrowing data from adjacent frames, to borrowing a whole frame.
> Only in the case of flipping a bit, you come closest to an accurate 1-to-1
> correction.
>
> -m-
> --
> "If he can he'll smile 'cos he's a Royal Crocodile."

From Adobe:

"This digital format has many benefits, including excellent picture
resolution, relatively low camera and tape cost, and no generational loss
during the duplication and editing process. It is a format that is being
rapidly adopted throughout the video industry."

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199904/19990419.prequicktm.html

A google search revealed scads of similar statements from other sources.
So, you'll forgive me, but I'll take Adobe's word over yours.

[Back to original message]