Subby, I don't know if you could've picked a better day to show this than 4/20. That's a pretty crazy trick.

Cool stuff.

*Shakes angry fist and goes with second pic*

scottydoesntknow: Subby, I don't know if you could've picked a better day to show this than 4/20. That's a pretty crazy trick.

you're welcome, stoners :)

That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

downstairs: jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

I always thought it did, your visual cortex just ties them together so they look seamless.

downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

FOR SCIENCE!

...now how should I best install such a thing near our toilet to fark with guests...hrm....

jaylectricity: downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

Only when illuminated by a/c electric light, surely.

jaylectricity: They do...as do ceiling fans.

Are you using florescent lights? Also shadows of the fan blades from the light kit underneath the fan will cause a strobe effect. As for the wheels, Google "The wagon wheel effect with continuous light' The lug nuts are faceted and can reflect enough strobe on the surface of the wheel---there's still some debate as to the source of the illusion tho, wiki has a nice article about it.

jaylectricity: downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

We see in a continuous flow (no FPS), but we can perceive artifacts and image flicker in images of less than 60 FPS. For example, if you interlace Black and White frames, and you have a frame rate of less than 30 FPS (interlaced), you'll see flicker. If you get the frame rate above 30 FPS (interlaced) you'll see gray.

This can be exploited to get higher quality images. For example, in the later years of the Commodore 64, there were some programmers creating higher res images by interlacing frames at 30fps to effectively double the resolution of the C64 monitor. I don't know if any official releases used this trick, I think it was mostly hobbyists.

Trippy.

Far f#ckin out!

Wave forms!
You tiny little wave forms!
You precious little wave forms!
Where are you?

In Australia, does this happen the other way around?

downstairs: jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

The eye most certainly does operate based on a frequency, like hearing it will vary from person to person and there isn't a hard number but the whole "24 frames per second" paradigm that movies are based on is because it was believed that the human eye takes about 1/25 of a second to process an image. We haven't really proven or disproved a specific number but the true number might be quite a bit higher.

Some will say "but 24 FPS in a video game looks terrible, I can tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps!" What is going on there is "micro-stutters". You see, frame-rate counters in games are based on an average, and so the overall number may be above 24fps but if it falls lower than that for a moment you perceive this as jerky movement. Adding more frames helps smooth these stutters out visually, but it doesn't prove that you can tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps.

Tillmaster: jaylectricity: downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

Only when illuminated by a/c electric light, surely.

And car wheels? I see that illusion all the time.

Tillmaster: jaylectricity: downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

Only when illuminated by a/c electric light, surely.

I had thought the sun fueled by nuclear fusion, not by alternating current.

downstairs: jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Pretty much.

Water does not stream out the faucet. It bursts out in round little blobs, but it happens so fast that they appear to blend together.

However, as far back as when In was in junior high, the teacher had a variable-speed strobe light, and he could then change the rate of the strobe to match the rate of faucet stream. With the strobe, we froze the stream, made it appear to go in reverse, etc.

This video effect essentially does the same thing. It's very very cool, and I'm pissed I didn't think to do it myself.

doyner: Tillmaster: jaylectricity: downstairs: jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

Do they in real life? I thought that was only when they're on film.

They do...as do ceiling fans.

Only when illuminated by a/c electric light, surely.

And car wheels? I see that illusion all the time.

Helicopter blades, plane propellers.

I remember messing with a similar setup at the Science Place in Dallas as a kid. They have a strobe light though mirroring the effect of the fps here. I still try and go in there every couple of years when I go to the State Fair.

and, for those who just want the direct youtube link

barefoot in the head: Wave forms!
You tiny little wave forms!
You precious little wave forms!
Where are you?

THAT'S NOT HOW THE SONG GOES

bodangly: downstairs: jaylectricity: That's pretty sweet, but it only works with the camera set to the same fps and the sine wave hertz, right? I wonder if you can experiment with different sine waves to find one comparable to your own eye-to-brain fps.

Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

The eye most certainly does operate based on a frequency, like hearing it will vary from person to person and there isn't a hard number but the whole "24 frames per second" paradigm that movies are based on is because it was believed that the human eye takes about 1/25 of a second to process an image. We haven't really proven or disproved a specific number but the true number might be quite a bit higher.

Some will say "but 24 FPS in a video game looks terrible, I can tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps!" What is going on there is "micro-stutters". You see, frame-rate counters in games are based on an average, and so the overall number may be above 24fps but if it falls lower than that for a moment you perceive this as jerky movement. Adding more frames helps smooth these stutters out visually, but it doesn't prove that you can tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps.

That doesn't make sense. You can easily cap a game at whatever frame rate you want and provided you have the hardware, keep it at that rate continuously. Most people can certainly tell a difference between 24 fps and 60 fps. Hell , you can tell that there are some motion problems in movies. It will be interesting what it does for cinema when The Hobbit gets released, as it was shot at 60 fps.

That's awesome! I'd swear I'd seen something like that once. I mean in person, maybe at a Ripley's believe it or not or something.

nekom: That's awesome! I'd swear I'd seen something like that once. I mean in person, maybe at a Ripley's believe it or not or something.

Ironically, I saw this exact same thing in person last 4/20...

downstairs:
Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

No wonder my TK count is so out of whack.

So, the naked eye wouldn't catch this optical illusion? Only viewing through the camera does it appear the water is standing still.
/pretty cool nonetheless

LeroyBourne: So, the naked eye wouldn't catch this optical illusion? Only viewing through the camera does it appear the water is standing still.
/pretty cool nonetheless

Yup. I don't know why they're heralding this as something new and amazing; this effect has been known for almost a hundred years.

GBmanNC: ...Most people can certainly tell a difference between 24 fps and 60 fps. Hell , you can tell that there are some motion problems in movies. It will be interesting what it does for cinema when The Hobbit gets released, as it was shot at 60 fps.

I am interested to see what direction movies move in. I can't see them going all the way to 60fps, since that will look essentially like tv, but the 48fps that Peter Jackson is using for The Hobbit sounds intriguing:

Peter Jackson explains 48fps decision

jaylectricity: downstairs: Your eye-to-brain system doesn't work in FPS.

Then why do car tires appear to spin backwards at certain speeds?

I swear that when I look at car tires spinning in my rear view mirror they look different than when I look at them directly. I'm pretty sure I am the one. I'm still working on my Kung Fu though so I can;t save you all yet from the machines.

Lostkacz: GBmanNC: ...Most people can certainly tell a difference between 24 fps and 60 fps. Hell , you can tell that there are some motion problems in movies. It will be interesting what it does for cinema when The Hobbit gets released, as it was shot at 60 fps.

I am interested to see what direction movies move in. I can't see them going all the way to 60fps, since that will look essentially like tv, but the 48fps that Peter Jackson is using for The Hobbit sounds intriguing:

Peter Jackson explains 48fps decision

LOL WUT?

Human vision does have a frame-rate limit. This is well-known and often exploited / played with. It's more often called the "flicker rate" or "flicker fusion threshold", which you can google if you want.

The flicker rate varies from species to species. Dogs and cats have a higher flicker rate than humans, which is part of why they're generally not as impressed with TV. Oddly, dogs, who don't seem to rely on visual cues as much, generally have a higher flicker rate than cats, which is why dogs often seem 'dumb' and disinterested in things by sight -- they've already seen it and gotten as much from it as they're going to so fast that a human observer thinks the dog didn't bother looking.

Many insects have such a high flicker rate that a standard motion picture would not seem to be a continuous moving picture to them, but just a series of still pictures with moving frames.

As for the illusion, it's OK, but it's basically a complicated way of doing a strobe light trick, yeah. For more fun, mix thicker liquids with controlled vibration rates and container sizes and get standing waves that look physically impossible. Science museums sometimes have exhibits like that.

Lostkacz: GBmanNC: ...Most people can certainly tell a difference between 24 fps and 60 fps. Hell , you can tell that there are some motion problems in movies. It will be interesting what it does for cinema when The Hobbit gets released, as it was shot at 60 fps.

I am interested to see what direction movies move in. I can't see them going all the way to 60fps, since that will look essentially like tv, but the 48fps that Peter Jackson is using for The Hobbit sounds intriguing:

Peter Jackson explains 48fps decision

Dude today is not the day to be linking to random pineapple news stories. I'm trying to stay straight over here.

RandomAxe: Dogs and cats have a higher flicker rate than humans, which is part of why they're generally not as impressed with TV

Some of my cats watch TV. We bought a DVD of birds and other animals. They absolutely paw at the birds directly.

The other cats probably see them, but are too damn lazy to give a fark.

I've never seen a dog interested in TV though.

GBmanNC: Lostkacz: GBmanNC: ...Most people can certainly tell a difference between 24 fps and 60 fps. Hell , you can tell that there are some motion problems in movies. It will be interesting what it does for cinema when The Hobbit gets released, as it was shot at 60 fps.

I am interested to see what direction movies move in. I can't see them going all the way to 60fps, since that will look essentially like tv, but the 48fps that Peter Jackson is using for The Hobbit sounds intriguing:

Peter Jackson explains 48fps decision

Dude today is not the day to be linking to random pineapple news stories. I'm trying to stay straight over here.

Oops. Wrong link. I'm clearly working too hard.

Here we go: Correct Peter Jackson 48fps link

/whatisthissorcery.jpg

Lostkacz, that was the best random pineapple news story, ever. And unintentional? Sweet mother of God.

kahnzo: Lostkacz, that was the best random pineapple news story, ever. And unintentional? Sweet mother of God.

Clearly the hare was the wisest... And the hare ate the pinapple because he wanted to (to replenish his electrolytes) while the rest partook because they were annoyed (embarrassed).

kahnzo: Lostkacz, that was the best random pineapple news story, ever. And unintentional? Sweet mother of God.

Well, it is a greenlit link in the queue.

doyner: kahnzo: Lostkacz, that was the best random pineapple news story, ever. And unintentional? Sweet mother of God.

Clearly the hare was the wisest... And the hare ate the pinapple because he wanted to (to replenish his electrolytes) while the rest partook because they were annoyed (embarrassed).

Hey, glad you enjoyed. I am curious where an immobile talking pineapple gets a lifetime supply of toothpaste in the first place, but I spose I'll have to find that out another time.

Lostkacz: Here we go: Correct Peter Jackson 48fps link

Hmmmm... I'm not into movies like The Hobbit, but I'd be interested in seeing the difference.

At the same time, I have yet to see a 3D movie... so I guess I have some catching up to do.