34 ms·
> A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head
by filoeleven 1y ago
> A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn.
Taking a screenshot from a video for exactly this reason is incredibly common. Look at any photograph accompanying a political story about a figure from "the other party".
See for example this Reddit post about the "triggered" meme origin:
> Ironically, if you ever get a chance to see the video of this incident, this woman and the man she's speaking with are actually having a polite discussion. But... She has very animated facial expressions and the photographer just happened to catch this frame at an inopportune moment.
So it seems to me that since a video is simply thousands of photographs with a soundtrack, video is strictly more invasive than photography.
https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04l1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04...
- latexr 1y agoIt is precisely because the video exists that you have the opportunity to correct the misconception, which is exactly what happened with the discussion in your example. Had it been a photograph, that context would have been lost and no one could refute it. The compression artefacts help there, because they make it very clear this was taken from a video, meaning one should look up the source because it probably exists. That is a perfect example of how a photograph could be worse than a video.