Re: 24 fps in question

[SteveS <sgshiya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At UCLA, in their newly opened Film Department, within the Theater Arts 
department, the issue was 'how effective is one single frame cut into a 
film?'  It was determined that ONE FRAME within a film could be perceived in 
the telling of a story.  Which is to say, we can (read may be able to . . .) 
perceive with content recognized one single frame in a film.

I seem to recall, in high school, the speed of perception by any person 
depended on one aspcet of their IQ.

Additionally, there was a day when we called the movies 'the flicks.'

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ADavidhazy" <andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" 
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:25 AM
Subject: 24 fps in question


> k et al,  :)
>
> > I think from memory the human eye has an effective aperture range from
> > about f5.6 to around f16, we supposedly 'see' at 24 frames per second..
>
> A high school teacher once told me that we see at 24 fps ... I never 
> forgot
> this because he was, in my opinion at the time, just wrong.
>
> The fact is I am not bothered much by such minutia anymore but I should 
> like
> to note that we see not in intermittent fashion as implied by "fps" but 
> that
> our vision, our perception of reality, is continuous. We can be "fooled" 
> into
> believing that a stream of images that differ slightly from each other 
> when
> presented to our eyes produces the sensation of continuous motion and
> "flickerless" presentation when the frequency equals or exceeds 24 fps. 
> But
> that does not mean we see at 24 or whatever frames a second.
>
> :)
>
> need some coffee ...
>
> g'day!
> andy