From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:27:47 PDT
Yes, I just noticed there is some problem with the film page on my site.
I will look into this problem.
I think you can access them through youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2Dhft7428&feature=related
Thanks.
Myron Ort
On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:16 PM, anja ross wrote:
> Hi Myron,
> I cannot open your webpage!
> Now I need to go! Thanks, Anja
>
> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <email suppressed>
> Hi Anja,
>
> I enjoyed watching your videos from your link. Also your photos.
>
> Myron Ort
>
> www.zeno-okeanos.com
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:04 PM, anja ross wrote:
>
>> Dear Myron,
>> Now I need to look to Max Wertheimer. It doesn 't matter if 1912
>> or not. Now we need to discuss the meaning of repetition in
>> general and in eminently, especially and specially. So I do not
>> have any television so that I cannot back it up with examples of
>> daily films.
>>
>> Yours faithfully and Tor!
>>
>> Anja
>>
>> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <email suppressed>
>> Max Wertheimer dealt with this phenomenon in his 1912 "Experimental
>> Studies on the Seeing of Motion.
>> The term "phi phenomenon" comes out of his Gestalt Psychology. Its
>> all interesting and relevant material which has informed me and many
>> artists and filmmakers for a long time now.
>>
>> I am not seeing anything new to think about in any of this discussion
>> yet.
>>
>> Myron Ort
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, email suppressed wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, my understanding is that the question of how the illusion of
>> > movement occurs in cinema got taken up into the much broader
>> debate(s)
>> > between psychoanalytic film theory and cognitive film theory. The
>> > former envisions a more passive spectator (i.e. one who is
>> "sutured"
>> > by the processes of the "apparatus," which replicates the "dominant
>> > ideology" that "positions the subject" - makes subjects out of
>> passive
>> > viewers who cannot avoid this happening to them, in other
>> words). The
>> > latter - cognitive film theory - asserts a more active spectator,
>> > emphasizing all the ways we process and "fill in" the input from
>> the
>> > screen. Critics of the persistence of vision explanation don't like
>> > the way it reduces the illusion of movement in film to brute
>> > physiology, and want to emphasize, instead, the "creative" (in a
>> very
>> > broad sense of that term) input from the viewer's active cognitive
>> > processes.
>> >
>> > Per Nicky's email, I've always wondered if our ability to track
>> > movement (apparent movement) across still frames has something
>> to do
>> > with vision being "discrete" rather than "continuous" (if that's
>> what
>> > you meant by "sampled in packets" Nicky). If vision is indeed a
>> > sampling process rather than continuous, that might help explain
>> why
>> > we can see motion in still images - we're primed to do so. But
>> that's
>> > only IF vision is discrete, and the jury is still out on that. And
>> > btw, I'm no scientist, so please file this under sheer speculation.
>> >
>> > Jonathan Walley
>> > Dept. of Cinema
>> > Denison University
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting "email suppressed>:
>> >
>> >> I think they are distinct issues, but the authors want to grind
>> >> their axes, so they do some polemicising early on in the essay,
>> >> before they settle down to looking at the issues around flicker
>> >> fusion, Phi, persistence etc. I posted the link because it does
>> >> deal quite usefully with how the illusion of movement has come to
>> >> be understood by psychologists and neuro-scientists as having
>> >> nothing to do with "persistence of vision", although there are
>> >> still debates going on within these communities about how various
>> >> movement phenomena occur. For example, the wagon wheel effect is
>> >> not peculiar to film but can be observed in ordinary objects in
>> >> continuous light, eg, car wheels appearing to go backwards and
>> >> forwards. One theory has it that this is because data is
>> sampled in
>> >> packets, against another that says it's to do with different
>> cells
>> >> in the visual cortex competing to register contrary motion
>> stimuli.
>> >>
>> >> If you put this into Google: Schouten, J. F. (1967). Subjective
>> >> stroboscopy and a model of visual movement detectors, you will
>> get a
>> >> link to a PDF of a paper on explanations for why the wagon wheel
>> >> effect can occur in continuous illumination.
>> >>
>> >> Nicky.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 6 Jul 2010, at 17:56, malgosia askanas wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't understand how the question of the mechanism whereby we
>> >>> have the illusion of motion when watching film segues into the
>> >>> question of "passive" vs "active" viewing. For example, "La
>> >>> Jetee" doesn't require any engagement of the mechanism for the
>> >>> illusion of motion. Does this mean that when we view it, we are
>> >>> condemned to passive spectatorship?
>> >>>
>> >>> -m
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > FrameWorks mailing list
>> > email suppressed
>> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks