I absolutely love this, including the eventual output. However, the word "video" needs removing from almost every part of the article as it makes it really hard to parse given that "video" is an entirely different medium.
I guess “film video” could be a real thing if some crazy person stored an analog video signal on an optical track on film.
What the author has built is called a movie camera, as someone else already noted. (It’s a great project, very impressive!)
Isn't video a generic term for a picture with motion? Surely how that motion is captured is irrelevant so long as it's reproduced as a video?
I understand extra steps were taken, but the output here is clearly a video?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video
> Video is an electronic medium for the recording, copying, playback, broadcasting, and display of moving visual media [emphasis my own]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera
> A video camera is an optical instrument that captures videos (as opposed to a movie camera, which records images on film).
It's a moving picture camera that uses film as the recording medium.
Video here makes sense in a few ways, particularly because it's all but certain that what will be viewed is a digital scan and not a projection and because the audience may be more familiar with the word. However, in a professional or technical context, video always refers to electronic movies and is not used when the medium is film. For example, when you say a movie was shot on video, then you are saying it was not recorded on film.