Posted by David McCall on 10/12/06 14:00

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:q1fri2h4hsl423hdue28qj40bsac6ecdh1@4ax.com...
> On 11 Oct 2006 20:48:56 +0200, Martin Heffels
> <feipbjszfo@oxeszdjnlp.xercdpvueppjtmougcqvtz.net> Gave us:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:58:58 -0700, JoeBloe
>><joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Bingo! The only "flicker" that is reduced is lamp/shutter flicker.
>>
>>Not really. With a shorter shutter-time, you would only show a shorter
>>part
>>of the sinus-cycle of the AC-voltage. The idea of projecting the same
>>image
>>2 or 3 times, is to reduce the image-flicker, by updating the image on the
>>retina more often. Optical illusion, so to speak.
>>
>
>
> Same frame three times over.... same retinal image, dope ass.

• Next in forum: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video
• Prev in forum: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video
• Thread view: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

[Reply to this message]