Posted by PTravel on 01/12/62 11:53

"Martin Heffels" <youwishyouwouldknow@nottellinya.com> wrote in message
news:imj6b29059hp94ghso662365lci1gcjnff@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:01:23 GMT, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The patent office? Sorry, but people can put whatever they want in a
>>patent
>
> I am reading the claims by Matsushita and Sony.

Why do I have to explain everything twice?

For a patent to issue, it must be new, non-obvious and useful. The
specification (which is the prose that comes before the claims) recites the
utility of the patent (that's why it's called a "utility patent").
Inventors can say whatever they want (as long as they don't say, "this is a
perpetual motion machine"). It doesn't mean that it's correct. It's
recited for one purpose only: to establish the utility of the patent.


>
>>-- the USPTO doesn't vet patent specifications for accuracy.
>
> Of course not, their peers or the consumers will do that.

Really? How many consumers read patents? More importantly, how many
consumers understand what they read?

>
>>Moreover, the question isn't "bit error rate," but "uncorrectable error
>>rate
>>as applied to dv tape."
>
> No, the original question was about bit-perfect copy. Uncorrectable errors
> were later introduced into the thread.

Nope. Up to your usual tricks I see -- can't win the argument, so change
the premise.

The discussion was in the context of whether D-25 resulted in generational
loss, making it less preferrable than SuperBeta for duping.

>
> [...]
>>> It is very hard though to find any sensible figures on it.
>>
>>Well, that's odd. If generational loss for DV copying was an issue, I'd
>>expect to see lots written about it, just as I see lots written about
>>generational loss for analog video. Instead, all I can find is sources
>>that
>>say there is no generational loss for video copying.
>
> But that is the whole point. The error correction, muffling away all the
> faulty bits, make it look like it is no concern, so nobody worries about
> it. It is a statistical exercise. And that says, yes, there are drop-outs,
> they can all be corrected, but not all of them "correct to the bit".

Right -- it's the dirty secret that only you know about. In fact, the
conspiracy is so vast that outfits like Adobe are willing to risk FTA
sanctions, not mention class action law suits, by lying about it.

All you have to do is quantify the amount of uncorrectable error. Do that
(and from a credible source, not your imagination) and we have something to
discuss. Otherwise, I read into the start of all of your posts, "Well, _I_
believe . . ." Sorry, not interested.


>
>>> I have read an
>>> article about it in an SMPTE-magazine, but their magazines are not
>>> online
>>
>>SMPTE is, of course, a reliable source of data. Did the article say that
>>copying digital video tape commonly results in data loss due to
>>uncorrectable errors?
>
> Yes. I hope I can somehow find a reference again, because I the
> SMPTE-magazines are only 10800km away from me :-)

I'll take your word for it that the reference exists. I just want the
number of uncorrectable errors resulting in data loss quantified.

>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> "If he can he'll smile 'cos he's a Royal Crocodile."

[Back to original message]