From: email suppressed
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 10:52:53 PDT
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.
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
FrameWorks mailing list