From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 12:05:30 PDT
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 http://www.aol.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.