Posted by George Hammond on 10/12/05 09:18

On 11 Oct 2005 20:18:14 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>George Hammond wrote:
>
>> Ever had your IQ tested?
>
> Yes: 127. But it's much worse than that. When theater film runs at
>24 fps, that's just the refresh rate. When a single frame is projected
>onto the screen it must stand still. The strip of film must undergo
>intermittent advancement. It is moved into the light gate, exposed to
>the light source, then advanced & replaced by the next frame. In order
>to avoid the blurr of the advancing frame, the projector has a shutter
>between the gate & the lamphouse, the light source.
>
> Just slightly before the frame is to advance, the shutter eclipses
>the lamphouse. While the light is cut off, the frame then advances.
>Once the next frame is in place, the shutter opens and allows the
>current frame to be seen. Each frame is visible, really, for only 1/48
>second. Anything which is visible for exactly one frame, for example a
>dust particle, is registered for only 1/48 second.

[Hammond]
WRONG. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S WRONG!

The SAME FRAME is "shuttered" 2 or three times by the "propellor
shaped shutter" in the projector.... therefore your "dust particles"
are visible for 1/24 of a second, NOT merely 1/48 of a second.



>
> And it's not just objects such as dust. In a fast paced action movie
>there are sequences of shots which may last only a few frames each, and
>events within a shot may occupy not more than one or two frames. The
>muzzle flash of a gun sometimes is only a single frame, yet everyone
>sees it. In Star Wars movies there are many such single frame events
>which are clearly seen. But not only that, but sometimes the visual
>effects aren't executed perfectly, yielding mistakes which are visible,
>but last but a single frame. In the original 1980 release print of The
>Empire Strikes Back there's a shot of Darth Vader standing with his
>glowing light saber. The glow effect was added in post production by an
>effects technician. But as it turns out there's a mistake. The exact
>last frame of the shot is "naked"; the glow effect is not present,
>revealing a plain prop blade. But this individual frame is clearly
>visible. Same thing in the 1st remake of King Kong. There's a shot
>looking straight up between the twin towers as Kong falls from directly
>above. But- the exact first frame of the shot has no Kong in it. He
>appears in midair 1/24 second into the shot. But all of these things
>are really visible for only 1/48 second.

[Hammond]
No they are not. The "double shuttering" shows the SAME FRAME
TWICE IN A ROW...... the FILM only advances at 1/24 of a second,
the shutter "double shutters" the SAME FRAME twice (in some projectors
three times).

You don't seem to realize that "flicker fusion frequency" and
"puicture fusion frequency" are TWO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA,
and are TOTALLY UNRELATED to each other.



>>
>> >
>> > And so-called subliminal imaging REQUIRES that the image be both
>> >registerable and resolvable at 1/24 of a second. If a sign saying "buy
>> >popcorn" weren't perceptible, then it WOULDN'T WORK. No one would be
>> >able to read it to begin with.
>>
>> > EVERY frame of a motion picture is
>> >plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG......... an average IQ person (IQ=100) can consciously see
only 15 different frames per second, no matter HOW MANY frames are
actually flashed in front of him. There are video cameras that whill
display 500,000 frames/second.... the person can only see 15 frames
per second however.... his brain simply "averages" each 33,333 frames
into a "single picture". You'r enot going to sit there and tell me
that a person can SEE 500,000 frames per second are you?
THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

>>
>> [Hammond]
>> WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
>> as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
>> Thomas Edison.
>
> The reason that subliminal advertising was made illegal is that it
>tended to work. In order for it to work, a viewer must be able to read
>the message, and do so in only 1/48 second. Every frame is visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG.... A "SINGLE FRAME" of a movie is visible for 1/24 of
a second.........it doesn't matter how many times you "chop" it with a
"shutter" to reduce "flicker". You're confused.



>
> In the late '70s Douglas Trumbull patented a process called
>"ShowScan". All it basically amounts to is increasing the frame rate. A
>movie is photographed & projected at 72 fps. The motivation was the
>observation that a higher frame rate = more information, causing the
>motion to appear vastly more real than the standard 24 fps. If people
>weren't able to register the extra frames, if they were only redundant,
>then the technique wouldn't work. As it turns out, the system does
>work, and is in use at theme parks today.

[Hammond]
Look... you're behind the times. there are video cameras with a built
in palyback screen that can shoot and display video at 500,000 frames
per second........... are you going to tell me that a person can
consciously see 500,000 frames a second... don't be stupid.




>
>>
>>
>> > The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
>> >motion.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Same difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And as for continuity of motion, the frame refresh rate can be
>> >dropped to even below 15 fps. There are cheap, low end digital movie
>> >cameras on the shelves at this moment which shoot at only 10 fps. I've
>> >seen experimental video shot at only 5 fps, in which motion tolerably
>> >approximates continuity.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
>> on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
>> compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.
>>
>> The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF
>
> Maybe. But most people then must have a pretty high rate. Kids play
>with strobe lamps all the time. What's the duration of a xenon flash?
>It's extremely fast. But in a pitch black room you can fire off a
>single strobe flash, and an image of the stuff in the room is
>registered.

[Hammond]
they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
kids... more like 1/10 of a second.


>
>-Mark Martin

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to COSAchurch@hotmail.com
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

[Back to original message]