[FFmpeg-user] The future of video

[Oliver Fromme]

Mark Filipak wrote:
 > On 17/07/2024 13.23, Oliver Fromme wrote:
 > > Mark Filipak wrote:
 > > > What if there's no such thing as frame in the future? Just think about it.
 > > 
 > > What are you going to use instead?
 > 
 > Pels.

Pel is just another name for pixel:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel
I assume that's not what you mean, do you?

 > > You somehow need to organize screen updates -- that is, when the
 > > contents of the screen change.  You have to describe the change
 > > somehow, and attach a time stamp to that change.
 > > That's exactly what a frame is.
 > 
 > I respectfully say that frame is a relic of film frames carried over to other visual media. I 
 > respectfully claim that video doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, serial photography by another name.
 > 
 > > A video is just a sequence of screen updates.  No more, no less.
 > > As every update is a frame, a video has to be a sequence of frames.
 > 
 > Does it? Frames are sequences of individually static pictures that are each populated by arrays of 
 > static pixels.

No.  In the context of video compression (such as MPEG), a frame is a
unit that is part of a video, and that describes what to do in order
to arrive at the desired screen contents associated with a certain
time stamp.  A frame does *not* have to be an individual picture.
It may well consist of just a single macroblock (in H.264 terms), or
even be completely empty.  In the case of variable frame rate, an
empty frame may be omitted altogether, saving a few bytes of header
data.

I almost suspect we both mean the same thing, but you refuse to call
it a frame.  :-)

In that case, the alternative that you're looking for already exists,
and it's being used all the time.  It's still called "frame", though.

Best regards
 -- Oliver