Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6615 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 13:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by 10.226.25.101 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 13:55:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2417 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 13:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 13:55:19 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14XO1l-0003Tx-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:49:25 +0000 X-Priority: 3 Received: from d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.3]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14XO1i-0003Tn-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:49:22 +0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.166.84.148]) by d06lmsgate-3.uk.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA133280 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:39:53 GMT Received: from usa.net (ss10.bld.socks.ibm.com [9.14.4.76]) by d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.95) with ESMTP id NAA126264 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:48:27 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3A9A5E5C.3DB84D63@usa.net> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:47:08 +0100 From: "Alberto di Bene" Organization: Undisclosed X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: 10 sec. dots References: <65AECDF1F89AD411900400508BFC869F0D75E7@pdw-mail-1.dera.gov.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Talbot Andrew wrote: > Oh -- that explains a lot -- > Particularly, why, during testing yesterday of SMT Hell bandwidths and > pixel durations, the optimum settings for decoding with Argo seemed to > come out with ratios that did not appear to be exactly related to > specified dot length. > > Shouldn't the labelled dot length be in ratios of 2 then, rather than 3 > ? > Yes, that would have been more correct, but I chose to follow the other way around, i.e. I used what the universally accepted dot lengths were, and tried to adapt the resolutions to them, accepting some approximations, not much relevant for this use. I could have used a non-power-of-two FFT algorithm, there are a few around, but for simplicity and speed sake I didn't. 73 Alberto I2PHD