4 ms·

> A camcorder is the only instrument that can produce a series of still frames that look identical to what a human observer saw in the same spot. Like a camera

> A camcorder is the only instrument that can produce a series of still frames that look identical to what a human observer saw in the same spot. Like a camera? A non-colourblind human with perfect 20/20 vision and no incidental visual impairment? What is with the repeated camcorder mentions? A camcorder will make people think of something like the Sony Video8 Camcorder from the 1990s, or other early consumer-grade videocameras.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
The video is the important part. If you say camera, people will think still frames. That's poisonous to the goal of realism, since video is the area no one has yet achieved. Also, a camcorder from the 1990's still generates images that are far beyond our current capabilities of realism.
- falsedan 9y ago
  > people will think still frames Video is still frames… you can't tell the difference between a 2-frame 24fps video and an animation of two photos taken 33ms apart. This holds as you add more images. The things that record video for films and TV are called 'video cameras'. In computer graphics, the software concept representing the point of view for the rendered scene is called a camera. Calling these things cameras is standard and well-understood in this domain. The obsession with the particular recording device seems like pointless minutia. If you called it 'a video capturing device', your message would not be weakened. Specifying exactly the model of 1960s triple-lens Bolex which the video has to emulate distracts from your message. > That's poisonous to the goal of realism, since video is the area no one has yet achieved. I don't know what to say: this has already been achieved, and you missed it. It doesn't seem important to expound on whether this has been achieved or not, since it's trivial to find an example which fulfills whatever your latest requirement is. cue "but realistic Hi I still don't know what the message is you're trying to convey: real-time generation of convincingly near-photorealistic video will… something? Don't worry about correcting my definitions; that makes your message "I'm a specialised dictionary in human form*".

sillysaurus3 9y ago

The video is the important part. If you say camera, people will think still frames. That's poisonous to the goal of realism, since video is the area no one has yet achieved. Also, a camcorder from the 1990's still generates images that are far beyond our current capabilities of realism.

falsedan 9y ago
> people will think still frames Video is still frames… you can't tell the difference between a 2-frame 24fps video and an animation of two photos taken 33ms apart. This holds as you add more images. The things that record video for films and TV are called 'video cameras'. In computer graphics, the software concept representing the point of view for the rendered scene is called a camera. Calling these things cameras is standard and well-understood in this domain. The obsession with the particular recording device seems like pointless minutia. If you called it 'a video capturing device', your message would not be weakened. Specifying exactly the model of 1960s triple-lens Bolex which the video has to emulate distracts from your message. > That's poisonous to the goal of realism, since video is the area no one has yet achieved. I don't know what to say: this has already been achieved, and you missed it. It doesn't seem important to expound on whether this has been achieved or not, since it's trivial to find an example which fulfills whatever your latest requirement is. cue "but realistic Hi I still don't know what the message is you're trying to convey: real-time generation of convincingly near-photorealistic video will… something? Don't worry about correcting my definitions; that makes your message "I'm a specialised dictionary in human form*".