From: Flick Harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 11:14:36 PDT
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.
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
* FLICK's WEBSITE:
* BLOG / NEWS:
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.