I heard somwewhere that videos are just pictures taken in rapid succession. Is this true?
2007-11-09 05:23:38 · 5 answers · asked by Wesjtay 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Camcorders
Yes, persistance of vision is the principal our eye uses to blend the frames together.
Note, though, that interlaced video is not a succession of static pictures rather a rapid succession of interlaced fields (60 fields per second) that is basically two respective frames sliced by line vertically (odd and even) creating two interlaced frames. Frame 1 has half of the original 1st frame and half of the origninal 2nd frame, and Frame 2 has the other half of the original 1st frame and the other half of the original 2nd frame.
Sorry if I just confused you further...
2007-11-09 06:18:11 · answer #1 · answered by CodemanCmC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is quite true - video is just a quick succession of still pictures - just like a movie film.
Although you can't see the pictures on a video tape when you transfer the video to your computer you can see the individual 'frames' so that you can remove those you do not want.
If you look at a movie film (not a video) you can see the seperate still pictures - a video is just the same.
..
2007-11-09 07:15:10 · answer #2 · answered by BRIAN C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When initially captured or later displayed, it is successive "still" images. However when stored, it is not a simple stack of "jpeg" image files. First, as mentioned above, for traditional video, the full frame is composed of 2 overlapping pictures called "fields" which are stored and retreived alternately. Second, modern digital Television, DVD and HDV is Mpeg2 system. This involves temporal compression, so instead of a group of frames being stored as a succession of still pictures, it is stored as one picture followed by "instructions" on how to make up the changes in following frames. Because each frame does not stand on its own, it makes editing a more sophisticated process.
2007-11-10 03:41:35 · answer #3 · answered by lare 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly , there is no such thing as a motion picture . By taking a series of still pictures , about twenty-four per second , each one advanced a tiny bit from the previous one , we get the llusion of motion .
We have , built into our sight , what is called The Persistance of Vision . We retain what we see for a tiny fraction of a second , after it's gone , permitting one picture to blend in with the next giving the illusion of motion .
2007-11-09 05:32:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no..i dont think so. but i know cartoons are.
2007-11-09 05:31:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋