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*".
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*".