Keep in mind that it simulates motion meaning it’s fake motion, but just a rapid succession of consecutive still images, if you see something with all non-consecutive still images in a film, then watch a Ken Burns documentary.
I think everyone understands that. But why are you so adamant that “movie” is an inappropriate word for this simulated motion?
It’s a bit of misnomer.
You’ll have to explain why. “Movie” seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate word for something that simulates movement.
Haven’t we had another thread about this subject lately? If not, I’m having a weird deja vu experience. I tried searching but couldn’t find anything. Anyone else remember this?
Yeah, we all know that still images make a movie showing still image by still image in rapid succession, I made this thread because I don’t like when websites put movies in the moving images category when they’re technically still images in quick succession.
But, the images are moving!
Just compare one frame to the next, and measure the positional difference.
Are you angling for a discount on your Netflix subscription since all they really provide is a large number of still images in quick succession?
That is literally the definition of the word “movie”.
MOVIE
mov·ie
/ˈmo͞ovē/
noun
NORTH AMERICAN
- a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture.
“Moving picture” is just a synonym for “movie”.
I really don’t understand why you think a “moving picture” must actually be moving. Can you explain?
It’s fake motion, not real motion.
The definition you chose doesn’t know that movies are a series of still images, live-action movies are photography in rapid succession and 2D animation is drawings in rapid succession, All motion pictures are still image by still image, it just how movies work, end of discussion.
The definition I chose (literally the first one that popped up on google) specifically says that movies are a series of still images.
Again, this is the standard definition of the term (and the term “moving picture” that everyone has agreed on, or at least has agreed on to the point that it’s the definition that is used by dictionaries.
So again, why do you think that a “moving picture” needs to physically move when that is not the definition used by pretty much everyone in the English-speaking world?
Saying “end of discussion” doesn’t clarify your position at all, only that you don’t want to discuss it further.
ETA: Dictionary.com’s version, which is more specific about the series of still images:
noun
-
a sequence of consecutive still images recorded in a series to be viewed on a screen in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement; motion picture.
-
a story, event, or the like, presented in this form.
Sorry about that, the term ‘‘movies’’ is just a everyday expression and not a literal term, the definitions of the term ‘‘movie’’ is completely accurate, Movies function the same way as a GIF.
You still haven’t explained your issue with this:
Well, some websites think that ‘‘moving images’’ are different entity, when movies should be in the still images category despite being a series of still images.
I propose that movies and plays swap names. Plays should be called movies because everything the viewer sees is actually moving. Movies should be called plays, because they are viewed when the ‘Play’ button is pressed and when the film is “playing”.
Different how? Can you show a website that differentiates these so that I can see what point you are trying to make?
Some websites have “image” formats like bmp, jpg, gif, etc. and even though gifs can “move” they are still considered “image” formats because of their extremely low frame rate and relatively small file size, where “movie” formats like AVI, MOV, MP4, FLV, etc. are differentiated because of their higher frame rate and larger file size.
Is this what you are trying to get at? If not, please explain.
You need to provide some proof of the existence of these websites.
The entire concept, etymology, and history of “moving pictures,” which has gone under dozens of names referring to different technologies, has always been based on the understanding that a series of swiftly presented still images creates an illusion of motion. This was such a world-shaking innovation that a specialized category was almost instantly devised to set this illusion of movement off from still images.
Given the amount of ignorance in the world, I’ll admit there may be some who, like flatearthers, deny reality and insist that real moving pictures exist. But they have to be a truly tiny number, since nobody responding here seems to have ever encountered one. We need to see one to examine its innards, so to speak.
It made by discovery that a series of still images are made in rapid succession to create a illusion, but not movement itself, Wikipedia claims that video is moving visual images when video is series of still images in quick succession, they should’ve put video in the still images category because of that to be technical.
Saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it right.