3 ms·
> Unless we're severely distorting the definition of a "video frame" to also include "one image in a series of images What is your definition of "video frame"
by gpm 1y ago
> Unless we're severely distorting the definition of a "video frame" to also include "one image in a series of images
What is your definition of "video frame" if not this?
> that can be as small as one pixel,"
Why would this be a criteria on the images? If it is, what is the minimum resolution to count as a video frame? Must I have at least two pixels for some reason? Four so that I have a grid? These seem like weird constraints to try and attach to the definition when they don't enable anything that the 1x1 camera doesn't - nor are the meaningfully harder to build devices that capture.
I agree the final result presented to the viewer is a composite... but it seems to me that it's a composite of a million videos.
- ssl-3 1y agoWe already have a useful and established term with which to describe just one pixel from a video frame. That term is "pixel".
- gpm 1y agoI concur, and as you say it comes from a video frame and thus a video. The fact that the video frame contains only a single one seems to change nothing.
- mewpmewp2 1y agoSo what if he captured 2 pixels at a time, would that constitute enough to be a definition of a frame?
- ssl-3 1y agoIf there is no lower bound on the size of the image that constitutes a frame, then: Please find the following pictorial summation of my thoughts on this matter to be a sufficient response to your question.