Posted by Toby on 07/13/06 22:28

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:4hnbabFdinnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
> news:44b5b22a$0$65966$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
>>> Sorry, but that's not what I'm asking. The contention here is that
>>> there is generational loss in straight copies of digital video data, and
>>> I've never heard that anywhere else. For generational loss to occur,
>>> there have to be gross drop out errors that can be fixed by conventional
>>> ECC and, per you and Martin, are fixed by extrapolating based on prior
>>> or subsequent video data, i.e. pixels are filled in. I'll take your
>>> word that happens, but I don't believe it happens often enough to be a
>>> concern. I'd like to see some data that suggests that, notwithstanding
>>> every source I've ever seen that says digital video dupes are lossless,
>>> this isn't so (see the quote from Adobe in a post I made to Martin).
>>
>> For most practical purposes they are loseless, and Adobe would probably
>> win in court with their fradulent claim.
>
> Either they are lossless or they are not. If they are not, Adobe is
> wrong. As for whether they'd win in court, let's just leave at this: I'm a
> lawyer, this is the kind of law that I practice, and you're wrong.

OK, you've got the case ;-)

>
>> That doesn't mean that it is truly loseless, for in that case *every*
>> single instance of error correction would have to be bit-perfect
>> reconstruction based on redundancy, and it is not.
>
> What is the uncorrectable error rate? Until that is established the
> discussion that this thread has veered into is moot.

Well, if it is above zero, then Adobe's claim is false, and I know it is
above zero.

Toby

[Back to original message]