Off Topic: A Movie Is To A Record Like A Photograph Is To A ?

Beep?

Note?

Chord?

Potato?

If I hold one note, syllable, or noise indefinitely, what use is it anyway?

Perhaps IPVM would consider another addition to these discussion forums.

I'm thinking a check box where we can vote for dumbest post of the year.

Singularity?

Meat Slicer?

A record is a sound track, which a movie encapsulates.

A _____ is a _________, which a photograph encapsulates.

Pixel? Not really, a movie has (mostly) one sound track, but a picture has many pixels, and pixels appeal to only one sense.

Monochrome image? That supposes the picture is color, encapsulating three or more different color layers, plus same sensory problem.

Intensity? Pretty much the same as a pixel.

The challenge is, pixels or color "panes" in aggregate completely comprise a picture, whereas sound tracks cannot completely comprise a movie.

Also, a record can be appreciated by only one sensing modality, while a movie appeals to two sensing modalities. Or, in a theater, three (remember that opening scene in the first star wars where the cruiser fills the screen and the sound is so intense you can feel the vibration?).

Maybe we have to discount the sensory dimensions, because how can you go below 1 sensing modality?

HEARING/SIGHT is to HEARING as SIGHT is to NOTHINGNESS. Ah, maybe I see how Carl came to "Singularity."

Back to the larger discussion, ...

Video is comprised of individual pictures. Humans can perceive pictures one at a time, although we can extract a different kind of information from a time sequence of images presented at a rate compatible with our capabilities. Video stuttering is a nuisance, but we can still perceive most of the intended information because we can perceive each primitive, a photograph.

Sound is somewhat different in what constitutes a primitive. English is said to be comprised of 50 or so fundamental phonic elements. If speech were presented in these primatives, even if presented irregularly in time, we could probably perceive the intended information. For example, when the kids say something like "Daddy how do you spell 'that?'" I slowly phonetically say "Thhh", .... "aaaAAA!" ..... "t" and they (mostly) understand. However, when speech is arbitrarily chopped up and presented at varying randomized rates, in pieces, our processing is challenged to grasp those fundamental phoenetic elements, because the random pieces are not presented in these fundamental perceivable quantities.

Chris, how about this? A movie is to a record like a photograph is to an audio clip with at least enough duration to convey a single idea.

One thing that strikes me is that a single picture can contain a lot of information presented virtually instantly (massively parallel input) where audio to be useful requires enough time to build a presentable idea for our brains (serial input).

For an object to be a photograph, isn't defined by how much useful information it presents. That falls under the qualitative judgement of how good a photograph it is. A photograph of a black cat in an unlit coal mine is still a photgraph; it just doesn't contain enough information to convey any useful information.

A silent movie is a series of photographic images presented rapidly and sequentially, enough so that they flow together to tell a story. A record does much the same thing, but requires more time to create the discrete audio images that then must be presented rapidly and sequentially together to tell their own story. Mess up the rate or the order of presentation in either medium and they can become unusable, and no story can be understood.

A movie is to a record as a photograph is to a conversation.

I like Ari's definition, but just like mine, it doesn't quite feel like we've got it nailed.

If we look at a frame from a camera, which is not exactly the same as a photgraph, we have to acknowledge that the way a frame is assembled takes time, just as surely as the audio does. My understanding of how the camera works is as follows.

An image sensor, made up of an array of pixel column and rows absorbs photons of varying energy levels in each element of the array, the quantity and ratio of each energy level of these photons is what determines perceived color and level. The shutter speed determines how long this absorbtion process is allowed to build a number in the cells (the same time for each element). This sets Time S(et) at the shutter speed. Then the values in the cells are latched while they are off-loaded into a buffer, one element at a time, sequentially a row or column at a time This sets Time L(oad). The camera then processes the raw data according to the compression algorithm used, any analytic programs that reside camera-side, and adds some framing and error detection data. This sets time P(rocessing). This is surely an over simplification of the total process; but it does show that we are dealing with a minimum time Time M(inimum)= Time S + Time L + Time P. This Time M is obviously many orders of magnitude smaller than the time required to string together enough pressure waves to form a meaningful audio clip, but it seems likely to be subject to the same poor results if interrupted or truncated.

No need to apologize, Chris, on my part. This is your thread (at least until John gets weary of us using his space).

Can I assume you are refering to the rods and cones in the human eye as opposed to the hammer and anvil in the ear?

Yes, and in all fairness, i see Brian also alluded to something similar.

Thanks guys for making me think! :)

Well it depends on the photograph of course.