10 frames is a little scanty, but I think the idea is great. I'm afraid most of my favorite gifs won't fit, but using this type of display is forehead-slappingly obvious - now that they've done it, of course.
Hi, thanks! 10 frames is a little short right now we agree, and we're working with our manufacturer to get even more. The main constraint is the registration accuracy between the lens and the print, which gets super hard when printing more than a few frames.
Have you tested making "loops" with larger frame counts by example printing out a strip and taping the ends together and spinning it to create a movie effect? Does that make sense?
This wouldn't work smoothly because each image would be, for example, 2 inches wide. You may have several frames per image, but then your eyes would have to jump two inches to the next frame. The old style zoetrope would have a much cleaner effect.
That's actually one reason why we're limiting things to up/down rotation also — the spacing of your eyes makes it hard to display lots of frames accurately when you're rotating it left/right. And zoetropes, so cool! We really want to try some of these out too: http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/10/the-first-animated-gif...
You could have four of these (maybe more?) with the top edges glued to a stick (side view: +). As you rotate the stick, you'd see 10 frames per sheet, then focus on the next one. I'm not sure if that would work.
