From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 10:18:26 PDT
*the after image is just a phenomenon on it's own. This sentence you can
take it and add it to a theoretical dissertion!*
*I think it is gorgeous or just amazing! dedicated to tony conrads fans!*
2010/7/6 Huckleberry Lain <email suppressed>
> So, the after image is just a phenomenon on it's own?
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Pip Chodorov <email suppressed>wrote:
>
>> Persistence of vision is when an image remains on the retina, like a
>> flash can leave a trace for a few minutes on your field of vision. If
>> persistence of vision were operating during the perception of a film,
>> each frame would stay impregnated on the retina. We would not
>> perceive the illusion of motion, but all the still frames
>> superimposing. The correct phenomenon responsible for the illusion of
>> motion in cinema is the Phi Phenomenon. The movement appears during
>> the black space between individual frames. If there is no
>> relationship between the images, as in a flicker film, then the
>> illusion will not be of motion but of flicker, for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> At 9:14 -0700 6/07/10, Huckleberry Lain wrote:
>> >It was always my understanding that the "persistence of vision" is
>> >the phenomenon that creates an after image. But you have
>> >been separating the two within your analysis. Could you explain
>> >further? I suppose maybe a more proper term would be "motion blur",
>> >but even then it's not quite right.
>> >thanks,
>> >huck
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Updated and Awesome - huckleberrylain.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks