From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:41:00 PDT
I agree with the authors, really I think the term "persistance of vision"
should probably
be discarded; retinal retention for afterimages is also inadequate but at
least it doesn't have
baggage hanging from it; visual constancy is probably the best substitute
for,
well, the visual constancy that has sometimes been called persistance of
vision.
Obviously none of these do much for explaining apparent motion in movies,
although I've speculated that film (film as projected film, and in some
cases
digitally sampled film) by doing a 'poorer' job than high resolution digital
motion imaging often looks more pleasing by virtue of this 'inadequecy' !
In a sense it may force areas in the visual cortex to work harder to do the
job.
I though of this by noticing that in high end digital cinema cameras
and some of the HD-DSLR's even 1/50 second shutter speeds look
too 'tight', the motion blur signature looks 'wrong' in relation to what
one would expect from film blur at the same shutter speed / sampling
period.
Of course the neurological process here is certainly far more complex,
but I do think continuous constancy and it's relation to cinema's
artificial constancies is not irrelevant....
-Sam Wells
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks