>
> The purpose of this visual "pitch-shifting" is like a way to record/
> playback/transmit/receive/store supreme-quality video while using the
> least bandwidth and storage space necessary when low-pass filtering is
> not an option.

> Hence, if you want to get decent imagery in a low-bandwidth imaging
> device, your best bet is to decrease the spatial frequency because
> transferring it into the imaging device.

>Randy Yates ieee.org> writes:
>

>> nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:

>>> [...]
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:46:19 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>> Davidson) wrote:
>>>

>>>>A "quantized...

> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:31:16 -0400, Randy Yates ieee.org>
> wrote:
>

>>nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:

>>> [...]
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:46:19 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>> Davidson...

> ... It's very hard to STORE signals purely analog without
> moving parts. In fact, I had a hard time thinking of any such
> device that is or was purely analog. However, the old analog
> storage oscilloscopes would meet your criteria if you don't
> include electrons in a vacuum as moving parts. There the limit to the
> frequency response is the size of the focus spot .... i.e.
> the quality of the lenses! (Such device of course uses analog
> electron lenses). If you don't intend to store forever, there
> were things like analog mercury delay lines which stored signals
> as sound waves travelling through mercury.

> ... If you are doing digital signal processing, you are
> doing arithmetic on the numbers that come out of an AtoD converter.
> You can't do that with some voltage levels out of a quantizer.

> As for discrete time, that is simply sampled, like a class D
> amplifier, and nothing to do with digits. There is plenty of laziness
> in the use of nomenclature (as well as misuse by people who simply
> have no idea what they are talking about).

>nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:
>

>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:31:16 -0400, Randy Yates ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>

>>>nospam@nospam.com (Don Pearce) writes:

>>>> [...]
>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007...

>Don Pearce wrote:
>

>> ... If you are doing digital signal processing, you are
>> doing arithmetic on the numbers that come out of an AtoD converter.
>> You can't do that with some voltage levels out of a quantizer.

>
>Transversal and recursive filters and correlators have been built that
>operate on unquantized samples. Fourier transforms have been "computed"
>with lenses. Do you remember the early days of side-looking radar?
>

>>>I've never seen that definition, while I have seen the definition
>>>Floyd is proposing, and I think it is a reasonable one.
>>>

>> No, it isn't. It misses the fact that sampled and digital are
>> different things. Digits are numbers.

>
> It isn't reaonable to you. Don't publish opinion as fact.

> Quantization isn't important. If you don't quantize all it means is
> that you are dealing with floating point rather than integer numbers.
> Still digital of course. I can't think of any floating point ADC's off
> hand, of course.

>Don Pearce wrote:
>(snip)
>

>> Quantization isn't important. If you don't quantize all it means is
>> that you are dealing with floating point rather than integer numbers.
>> Still digital of course. I can't think of any floating point ADC's off
>> hand, of course.

>
>Floating point is still quantized, though not the same as fixed
>point (integer) data.
>