From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:16:53 PDT
*I cannot open your webpage!*
*Now I need to go! Thanks, Anja
2010/7/6 Myron Ort <email suppressed>
> Hi Anja,
> I enjoyed watching your videos from your link. Also your photos.
> Myron Ort
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:04 PM, anja ross wrote:
> Dear Myron,
> Now I need to look to Max Wertheimer. It doesn 't matter if 1912 or not.
> Now we need to discuss the meaning of *repetition in general* and *in
> eminently, especially and specially*. So I do not have any television so
> that I cannot back it up with examples of daily films.
> Yours faithfully and Tor!
> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <email suppressed>
>> Max Wertheimer dealt with this phenomenon in his 1912 "Experimental
>> Studies on the Seeing of Motion.
>> The term "phi phenomenon" comes out of his Gestalt Psychology. Its
>> all interesting and relevant material which has informed me and many
>> artists and filmmakers for a long time now.
>> I am not seeing anything new to think about in any of this discussion
>> Myron Ort
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, email suppressed wrote:
>> > 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
>> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
FrameWorks mailing list