Re: [Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)

From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 11:56:00 PDT

*Dear Jonathan Walley,*
*Where am I landed here, Jonathan?
Here a bad documentation of our work but you get impression as I looked like
** <>
* (these photographies might be shot in San Fransisco or? But infact it is
*A good day, Anja*

2010/7/6 <email suppressed>

> 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

FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed