You've replied to my technical definition with a non-technical rebutal that's taking its definition from people's vernacular use of the word. Sure, what people saw in your example has barely changed between test cases. So you're saying that because the temporal resolution change hasn't resulted in a perceptual change of image quality, that it isn't a factor of graphics? By that same factor, if the resolution changes from 1920x1080 to 1855x1043 (viewed on a 1043 native display to elliminate upscaling) and the viewer isn't really aware, especially if viewed on a screen size from a distance where that change isn't perceptible, that it means resolution also isn't a part of a graphics, because a slight change isn't noticed?
You've picked an example to fit your definition, but it doesn't work when extended beyond just that example. The technical definition applies uniformly no matter what situation, as it's not based on a personal perception. Let me try this one last time, using your example!
Right, you understand of graphics that the pixel value changes for different pixels. We can say that the purpose of graphics is for the pixels to match as closely as possible the current state of the universe within the computer game. If we consider different pixels in the horizontal dimension, subsequent pixels need to change value. If they don't, you'll just as a flatly coloured line, which won't represent the changing data of the virtual scene within the program, right? A line of green pixels would be Bad Graphics if that row of pixels is actually part of a field of view that encompases plants, concrete structure, brightly coloured soldiers etc. And likewise, pixel values need to change in the vertical direction, otherwise you'd just have a line of colour. The pixel values need to change in the different dimensions to assemble the visual information, right? If a pixel doesn't accurately represent the world, we can claim bad graphics. If we see the green pixel of a leaf where in the game universe you are looking at the red shirt of a soldier, that's bad graphics. Likewise if the resolution is too low, the information communication will be poor, and you won't be able to understand the universe as it exists inside the game, right? If an entire enemy soldier is represented as a single huge pixel of colour, we won't know which direction he's facing, what weapon he's equiped with, etc.
Likewise, moving in the
temporal dimension, the pixel needs to change value. If it doesn't, you end up missing vital information. If our solider is rendered facing our left at a good distance gazing at the sky, when in fact he's moved towards us and has a knife, the information we are being presented with is wrong, meaning Bad Graphics because the graphics have failed to accurately communicate the state of the game. By
your own definition, graphics are about changing pixel values, which change from one pixel to the next. All you need appreciate is that framerate is pixels changing value through a different dimension to horizontal and vertical, but it's still the same issue of changing pixel values to communicate pictorially the state of the game!
Which I said earlier, representing information. The graphics of an engine are communicating the world, right? We agree on this.
No-one said they do. If the world information isn't changing, the graphics will not need to change. However, what happens when the information that the picture is representing
is changing?
If true, then you don't have a proper definition of "graphic"! Which was the purpose of the thread, no? To elliminate subjective interpretations and find a valid definition that works for all cases.
Again, no one is saying you cannot have still graphics!
You can have black-and-white graphics. Does this mean colour isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need colour to have graphics?
You can have low-resolution graphics. Does this mean resolution isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need higher resolutions to have graphics?
You can have stick-men graphics. Does this mean model detail isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need detailed models to have graphics?
You can have stationary graphics. Does this mean animation isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need animation to have graphics?
You can have static image graphics. Does this mean framerate isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need framerate to have graphics?
You can have empty line-art graphics. Does this mean texturing isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need texturing to have graphics?
You can have jaggie, aliased graphics. Does this mean antialiasing isn't a part of graphics, because you don't
need antialiasing to have graphics?
Ummm, what is that thing "larger than both" called...?
Graphics!
"Graphics" is made up of resolution, colour, image quality aspects (AA and AF), animation, framerate, lighting methods, texture detail, shaders, etc. All are different, interconnecting parts of the field of graphics. You can have graphics with all these things or missing some, or even missing most in the case of the original Pong! The absence of any does not mean you are no longer talking about graphics.
So in summary, our workable definition that negates all subjective interpretation of whether something loks nice or not, or whether it makes a perceptible difference or not, (and making the distinction between computer graphics and just "graphics" which can also mean applications fo natural artwork etc.)
"Computer graphics is the all-encompassing field of creating visual feedback to communicate the state of the internal workings of the computer program producing them."
Is that suppose to be a rebuttal to the point put before you?
