I would probably call it 2 billion fps* (with an asterisk), with a footnote to explain how it’s different than video is typically captured. Especially the fact that the resulting video is almost a million discrete events composited together as opposed to a single event. All of which the video is transparent about, and the methodology actually makes the result more interesting IMO.
I would say that everyone - you, other commenters disagreeing with you, and the video - are all technically correct here, and it really comes down to semantics and how we want to define fps. Not really necessary to debate in my opinion since the video clearly describes their methodology, but useful to call out the differences on HN where people frequently go straight to the comments before watching the video.
I would say that everyone - you, other commenters disagreeing with you, and the video - are all technically correct here, and it really comes down to semantics and how we want to define fps. Not really necessary to debate in my opinion since the video clearly describes their methodology, but useful to call out the differences on HN where people frequently go straight to the comments before watching the video.