> 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.
I 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.
If I were to agree with this, then would you be willing to agree that the single-pixel ambient light sensor adorning many pocket supercomputers is a camera?
And that recording a series of samples from this sensor would result in a video?
If 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.
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.