Jump to content

Talk:Cinemagraph/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

non-FMV Video games

Maybe we should mention that, although the name has appeared only recently, the exact same technique has been thoroughly used in the 90ies as a disk-space saving technique for backgrounds of video games that did use digitized artworks with animation, but could not afford the space requirement of FMV (Full motion video - The whole screen is a video). To save space, such older games used a big still frame for the background, and only animated a few details to give the impresison of a lively world. It's exactly the same as a Cinemagraph, although the logic is completely inverted. - In a cinemagraph, only a few details move, because of the eerie feeling of having only part of a photo moving while everything else stands still. - In a non-FMV video game, only a few detilas move, because you can't afford the disk space of having a whole video, and a few details still make a better impression of a living world, instead of a still photo.

the techniques stems from the way animation are created for cartoons and pixel-art games.

tons of games produced in the 90ies have such artwork.

2 random examples: - Wing commander III and IV - use this for the background while moving around the different rooms on a ship. (As opposed to the cutscene, which are actual FMV streamed directly from the CD-ROM), - Dark Seed II - an example that uses scanned painting (by H.R.Giger) instead of video photage, but does exactly the same. DrYak (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

photions

Dear all,

In 2010 I invented "photions", a way to capture more than a moment in time. In looping video under HTML5. I created a website with a proof of concept, a short "how to", and explanation. I made several moving photos, amongst which a photo of my elementary school reunion in April 2010. I advertise the concept on Google Adwords since April 2010. Proof of the date is on the Internet Archive, which keeps a date stamp of existing content:

Much to my regret I found that in 2010 "cinemagraphs" came up, with the same basic idea, but as moving gifs.

I would like to add reference to my work in the lemma of cinemagraphs. I added information in December 2011, but it got removed. I discussed this with Wikipedia, and under the current rules, which I accept, there are problems:

  • There is no other source, but my website (i.e. "primary source").
  • There is a source providing evidence of the early work, but it is a step too far to claim, as inventor, that it is about the same thing.

Photions are not a brand, but the idea of moving photos in a loop to "capture more than a moment in time" is mine. In a Wikipedia article about cinemagraphs it should be mentioned as reference: that a similar technology exists since 2010, and cinemagraphs started only in 2011. That is my opinion.

Today I even found video of Microsoft Research, using the same phrase "Capture more than a moment in time" (which is in the Google advertisement since April 2010 and in the Internet Archive since September 2010), and they write research papers referring to cinemagraphs, but not to my early work. I am saddened by this. I believe a proper reference on Wikipedia would help prevent non-attributed use, although Microsoft Researchers have their own responsability to prevent using material of others without reference.

I would enjoy discussing this. How do you feel about this? Any suggestions how to complete the lemma of cinemagraphs? I do not foresee a proper lemma for photions, since in my view it is the same thing, "cinemagraphs" is as good a name for the thing as anything, and everything can be combined in one article on Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Joost Smits Eurojojo (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Eurojojo.
It seems to me there's a bit of confusion on several subjects. I'll try to outline them:
1.-Relevancy: One of the first criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia is relevancy. It's fair to say you'd need to prove "photions" fills the relevancy criteria. Both to the subject matter and within it. My personal opinion is that it doesn't in either case.
2.-The assumption seems to be Cinemagraphs are related to photions somehow. I don't believe this is the case and it seems the whole premise is predicated on the wording used by the media to describe them. This wording has been used in the past, prior to cinemagraphs and photions. Flickr used a similar wording when they added the ability to upload short-duration videos.
3.-Photions could be shown in a "related" section, where the decades of similar prior art could be thrown in. This wouldn't pass the trivia filter and would be removed, but I can't see any other relationship. This would necessarily need to include the original animated gif spec, the .GL animations of the 90s, Harry Potter moving "photos", etc.
4.-Concepts are esentially different. The definition of cinemagraphs are not "a moment captured in time" but, especifically, "an animated gif with only specific regions set to loop". Every photo, moving or not, is a "moment captured in time". Cinemagraphs started becoming famous due to movie-based ones and it was only later that real-life ones started appearing.
5.-What you call "Photions" are short movies. Cinemagraphs are, especifically, not movies. "Photions" are, essentially, animated gifs in a different format, from what I can tell: A super short movie that can be embedded into a web. They're not different, essentially, than the short movies embedded in web pages used by Netscape to show off javascript jpeg replacement in the mid-90s.
6.-As for why it's not relevant and why it didn't take off, I'd guess in part it's because it didn't bring anything new to the table (cinemagraphs became famous because of the art involved and the technology trick of using the ubiquitous gif format) and in part because it didn't work "out of the box" (anything more complex than adding an image source is already more complex than an animated gif or animated png).

eduo (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cinemagraph etymology

I would like to bring attention to an earlier use of the word Cinemagraph, coined in 2001 and published in 2003 as the title of a poem by Matthew Chenoweth Wright. Some research should prove the etymology predates the date cited in the article. http://www.postpoems.org/authors/enuminous/poem/471909 for the poem's publication in 2003 on the Postpoems.com site.

Interesting, but seems unrelated to the meaning of the term described in the article.  Sandstein  13:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I think it might be worthwhile to chat about the idea that the definition here isn't particularly good. I've spoken with the creators before and tried to sum up their points like so:

    1. Cinemagraph Basics
  • *A cinemagraph is a high quality gif.* It needs a certain resolution (something like Tumblr's limitation of image widths) and a good colour palette.
  • *A cinemagraph is very smoothly looped.* There should not be a noticeable "seam" to a cinemagraph.
  • *The loop creates a certain quality of motion.* This is subtle, but important. The quality of the movement is what defines the feel of the cinemagraph. It should be well crafted, smooth, and *natural within the boundaries of the universe of the cinemagraph*.
  • *A Cinemagraph has an immobile frame of reference.* Just like a photograph, the "world" of a cinemagraph doesn't move.
  • *A Cinemagraph is distinct from a Plotagraph*. Cinemagraphs typically are sourced from videos and are made by looping existing movement; Plotagraphs are sourced from photos and are made by adding artificial movement.

All definitions include these things; these are the silver (not golden) rules of Cinemagraphy, in that they can clearly help us define what is *not* a cinemagraph, though they don't really give us a definitive answer about what *is* a cinemagraph.

    1. Types of Cinemagraphs

There are a couple varieties of cinemagraph.

      1. Living Moment Cinemagraphs

These cinemagraphs take a moment and preserve it. The quality of the movement is such that there is no particular part of the cinemagraph that is artificially frozen; any parts that aren't in motion would not be in motion if the cinemagraph was a video. The difference between this kind of cinemagraph and a video is that the moment has a loop, whereas a video does not; this moment is eternal, whereas a video is transient, *i.e.* each instance of the video recreates the moment, which moves along a timeline from beginning to end, but the cinemagraph's timeline is circular instead of linear. No beginning, no ending. One particularity of this kind of cinemagraph is that any one frame of it should be a good photograph. This kind of cinemagraph is popular in [IWDRM](http://iwdrm.tumblr.com/), but here are some examples from this subreddit:

      1. Isolated Movement Cinemagraphs

These cinemagraphs take a normally busy scene and freeze it as a photograph, and then preserve the motion of one particularly small part of said photograph. This is more clearly different from a video than the "Living Moment" type above; it's taken a clearer step away from IWDRM, and these types are usually about subtlety. Another clear distinction is that the underlying, unmoving photograph should be a good photograph, but there are some frames of the isolated movement that would be detrimental to an overall picture (not every frame is as equally captivitating, nor does it need to be). [F. David Robbins](http://fdrobbins.tumblr.com/) seems to favour this and here are some examples of this kind of cinemagraph from this subreddit:

There are a lot of people who say that only one or the other of these are cinemagraphs; they cite how much of a picture is in motion, or how parts of it being *not* in motion ruin the "living moment".

Andrew (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

All well and good, but we need reliable published sources for this. See WP:V. Sandstein 17:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need something, but the article as it stands now doesn't have anything to support its description of what a Cinemagraph is; there's no source there.

Why is that an acceptable definition, but original writing on an emerging media form is not?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just wondering why a definition that is accepted by the largest Cinemagraph community online (r/Cinemagraphs) would not be an acceptable to post, but something that is made up and has no sources *is*.

(I do understand that a social media source like a subreddit is an unreliable source, I'm just questioning the validity of this article at all, since the sources are meaningless, and it's really just someone's opinion, and that opinion happens to be... wrong)

Andrew (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Cinemagraph with repeating human action

@Sandstein: undid revision 977851444 with the comment "does not show anything the first image does not; also raises possible privacy issues)".

The two images are very different in application: File:Waving reeds cinemagraph.gif has subtle and rather irregular movement (more an artistic use) whereas File:Feuerreiben.gif's movement is very obvious and illustrates a repeating human action (more encyclopaedic). I therefore think it worth having both images. It's not that the article already has too many images or is too long.

The privacy issue concern is moot as the image does not show anything controversial and is already used on many articles.

Cheers,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 10:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cmglee, my concern is also that the image resembles a human zoo and is therefore inappropriate. Also, we don't need two images to illustrate the same concept. Sandstein 13:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinemagraph/Archive_1&oldid=1067817151"