From: Flick Harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 15:16:26 PDT
> > At 4 or 5 you would see flickers between frames. That's a radical
> difference.
>
> But flicker is not darkness. And there isn't even that much of it
> on a modern projector at a low fps. If POV were true, the dark
> intervals would be longer, and there would be a definite piling up
> of them in the eye. But that doesn't happen. You don't see the dark.
The flicker isn't darkness?? What is it then?
If, on a modern projector, the 4fps image is actually a repeat of
each frame but still running the blade at 24fps (i.e. it's a 24fps
movie but each frame is repeated several times, giving a 4 fps
"story" but with 24 flickers per second), then it's not a disproof of
p.o.v.
The flickers are the same, even if you play a single freeze-frame at
24fps forever.
Try hand-cranking a projector so that the black stays for 5 seconds.
Notice it? I betcha do.
Again, blackness can't pile up on the retina in p.o.v. theory,
because black doesn't stimulate the optic nerve. We don't see it so
it doesn't register. Not unnoticed - actually unseen.
I.e. cats can't see in the dark. Only in very dim light.
My favourite joke on set is to get a new p.a., hand them a big black
flag, and tell them to go bounce that shadow out of the corner onto
the actor.
* FLICK's WEBSITE:
http://www.flickharrison.com
* FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
* BLOG / NEWS:
http://zeroforconduct.blogspot.com
* MYSPACE:
http://myspace.com/flickharrison
On 31-Oct-07, at 12:05 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2007 11:31:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> On 30-Oct-07, at 11:28 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:
>
>> It's interesting-- the fact that we don't see the dark strokes
>> proves that optical 'persistence of vision' is a fallacy. If it
>> were true, then the dark time would be readily apparent, as a
>> dimming or darkness caste over the entire image.
>>
>> So why don't we see that? Why don't we amalgamate the dark
>> 'images' the way we pile together the light ones?
>
> Darkness isn't an image. It doesn't stimulate the optic nerve, as
> the p.o.v. theory runs - therefore darkness cannot persist
> according to p.o.v. theory.
>
> It was in quotes. What dark frames would do (they're not really
> frames, but the blade sector intervals) is carry over onto the
> light frames. But they don't.
>
>
> I suppose, though, that if the retina takes time to "cool down"
> then it should take time to "warm up" but these need not be
> identical times - a light bulb, for instance, comes on instantly
> but takes time to cool down.
>
>> A quick and easy way to prove this is with a variable speed
>> projector. Project a static image at 18 fps, then do the same down
>> to 4 or 5. If persistence of vision were true, then there would be
>> a radical change in what we see. But there is not.
>
> At 4 or 5 you would see flickers between frames. That's a radical
> difference.
>
> But flicker is not darkness. And there isn't even that much of it
> on a modern projector at a low fps. If POV were true, the dark
> intervals would be longer, and there would be a definite piling up
> of them in the eye. But that doesn't happen. You don't see the dark.
>
>
>
>
>
> See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.