DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE,
Wisegeek seems to have dropped the ball on the bee response
time. :P
Surly,
Thanks for the info on frame rates in movies. I remembered dimly
it had something to do with how many 'frames' human eyes see per
second but I'm certain projector speed and film manufacturing
technology limitations affected the final decision on movie
frame rates.
I'm going to look into human visual acuity to get the scoop on
how well we see.
#Post#: 48--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 10:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly and RE,
Here's what I dug up on human frame rate acuity. It's kind of
long but I find it quite interesting.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
Human Eye Frames Per Second
02/21/2001 10:30:00 AM MST Albuquerque, Nm
By Dustin D. Brand; Owner AMO
How many frames per second can our wonderful eyes see?
This article is dedicated to a friend of mine, Mike.
There is a common misconception in human thinking that our
eyes can only interpret 30 Frames Per Second. This misconception
dates back to the first human films where in fact a horse was
filmed proving actually that at certain points they were resting
on a single leg during running. These early films evolved to run
at 24 Frames Per Second, which has been the standard for close
to a century.
A Movie theatre film running at 24 FPS (Frames Per Second)
has an explanation. A Movie theatre uses a projector and is
projected on a large screen, thus each frame is shown on the
screen all at once. Because Human Eyes are capable of
implementing motion blur, and since the frames of a movie are
being drawn all at once, motion blur is implemented in such few
frames, which results in a lifelike perceptual picture. I'll
explain the Human Eye and how it works in detail later on in
this multi-page article.
Now since the first CRT TV was released, televisions have
been running at 30 Frames Per Second. TV's in homes today use
the standard 60Hz (Hertz) refresh rate. This equates to 60/2
which equals 30 Frames Per Second. A TV works by drawing each
horizontal line of resolution piece by piece using an electron
gun to react with the phosphors on the TV screen. Secondly,
because the frame rate is 1/2 the refresh rate, transitions
between frames go a lot smoother. Without going into detail and
making this a 30 page article discussing advanced physics, I
think you'll understand those points.
Moving on now with the frame rate. Motion blur again is a
very important part to making videos look seamless. With motion
blur, those two refreshes per frame give the impression of two
frames to our eyes. This makes a really well encoded DVD look
absolutely incredible. Another factor to consider is that
neither movies or videos dip in frame rate when it comes to
complex scenes. With no frame rate drops, the action is again
seamless.
Computer Games and their industry driving use of Frames Per
Second
It's easy to understand the TV and Movies and the technology
behind them. Computers are much more complex. The most complex
being the actual physiology /neuro-ethology of the visual
system. Computer Monitors of a smaller size are much more
expensive in cost related to a TV CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). This
is because the phosphors and the dot pitch of Computer Monitors
are much smaller and much more close together making much
greater detail and much higher resolutions possible. Your
Computer Monitor also refreshes much more rapidly, and if you
look at your monitor through your peripheral vision you can
actually watch these lines being drawn on your screen. You can
also observe this technology difference by watching TV where a
monitor is in the background on the TV.
A frame or scene on a computer is first setup by your video
card in a frame buffer. The frame/image is then sent to the
RAMDAC (Random Access Memory Digital-Analog-Convertor) for final
display on your display device. Liquid Crystal Displays, and FPD
Plasma displays use a higher quality strictly digital
representation, so the transfer of information, in this case a
scene is much quicker. After the scene has been sent to the
monitor it is perfectly rendered and displayed. One thing is
missing however, the faster you do this, and the more frames you
plan on sending to the screen per second, the better your
hardware needs to be. Computer Programmers and Computer Game
Developers which have been working strictly with Computers can't
reproduce motion blur in these scenes. Even though 30 Frames are
displaying per second the scenes don't look as smooth as on a
TV. Well, that is until we get to more than 30 FPS.
NVIDIA a computer video card maker who recently purchased
3dFx another computer video card maker just finished a GPU
(Graphics Processing Unit) for the XBOX from Microsoft.
Increasing amounts of rendering capabilities and memory as well
as more transistors and instructions per second equate to more
frames per second in a Computer Video Game or on Computer
Displays in general. There is no motion blur, so the transition
from frame to frame is not as smooth as in movies, that is at 30
FPS. In example, NVIDIA/3dfx put out a demo that runs half the
screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. The results? -
there is a definite difference between the two scenes; 60 fps
looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps.
Even if you could put motion blur into games, it would be a
waste. The Human Eye perceives information continuously, we do
not perceive the world through frames. You could say we
perceive the external visual world through streams, and only
lose it when our eyes blink. In games, an implemented motion
blur would cause the game to behave erratically; the programming
wouldn't be as precise. An example would be playing a game like
Unreal Tournament, if there was motion blur used, there would be
problems calculating the exact position of an object (another
player), so it would be really tough to hit something with your
weapon. With motion blur in a game, the object in question would
not really exist in any of the places where the "blur" is
positioned, that is the object wouldn't exist at exactly
coordinate XYZ. With exact frames, those without blur, each
pixel, each object is exactly where it should be in the set
space and time.
The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or
computer video has been to push the human eye past the
misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the
Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible,
ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a
Physiologist.We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a
second.
With Computer Video Cards and computer programming, the
actual frame rate can vary. Microsoft came up with a great way
to handle this by being able to lock the frame rate when they
were building one of their games (Flight Simulator).
The Human Eye and it's real capabilities - tahDA!
This is where this article gets even longer, but read on,
please. I will explain to you how the Human Eye can perceive
much past the misconception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even
surpassing 200 FPS.
We humans see light when its focused onto the retina of the
eye by the lens. Light rays are perceived by our eyes as light
enters - well, at the speed of light. I must stress the fact
again that we live in an infinite world where information is
continuously streamed to us.
Our retinas interpret light in several ways with two types of
cells; the rods and the cones. Our rods and cells are
responsible for all aspects of receiving the focused light rays
from our retinas. In fact, rods and cones are the cells on the
surface of the retina, and a lack thereof is a leading cause of
blindness.
Calculations such as intensity, color, and position (relative
to the cell on the retina) are all forms of information
transmitted by our retinas to our optic nerves. The optic nerve
in turn sends this data through its pipeline (at the nerve
impulse speed), on to the Visual Cortex portion of our Brains
where it is interpreted.
Rods are the simpler of the two cell types, as it really only
interprets "dim light". Since Rods are light intensity specific
cells, they respond very fast, and to this day rival the
quickest response time of the fastest computer.
Rods control the amount of neurotransmitter released which is
basically the amount of light that is stimulating the rod at
that precise moment. Scientific study has proven upon
microscopic examination of the retina that there is a much
greater concentration of rods along the outer edges. One simple
experiment taught to students studying the eye is to go out at
night and look at the stars (preferably the Orion constellation)
out of your peripheral vision (side view). Pick out a faint star
from your periphery and then look at it directly. The star
should disappear, and when you again turn and look at it from
the periphery, it will pop back into view.
AGelbert note: This is why pilots are trained to look at runway
lights peripherally and not fixate when making night landings.
Cones are the second retina specialized cell type, and these
are much more complex. Cones on our retinas are the RGB inputs
that computer monitors and graphics use. The three basic parts
to them absorb different wavelengths of light and release
differing amounts of different neurotransmitters depending on
the wavelength and intensity of that light. Think of our cones
as RGB computer equivalents, and as such each cone has three
receptors that receive red, green, or blue in the wavelength
spectrum. Depending on the intensity of each wavelength, each
receptor will release varying levels of neurotransmitter on
through the optic nerve, and in the case of some colors, no
neurotransmitter. Due to cones inherent 3 receptor nature vs 1,
their response time is less than a rods due to the cones complex
nature.
Our Optic nerves are the visual information highway by which
our lens, then retina with the specialized cells transmit the
visual data on to our Brains Visual Cortex for interpretation.
This all begins with a nerve impulse in the optic nerve
triggered by rhodopsin in the retina, which takes all of a
picosecond to occur. A picosecond is one trillionth of a second,
so in reality, theoretically, we can calculate our eyes
"response time" and then on to theoretical frames per second
(but I won't even go there now). Keep reading.
The optic nerves average in length from 2 to 3 centimeters,
so its a short trip to reach our Visual Cortex. Ok, so like the
data on the internet, the data traveling in our optic nerves
eventually reaches its destination, in this case, the Visual
Cortex - the processor/interpreter.
Unfortunately, neuroscience only goes so far in understanding
exactly how our visual cortex, in such a small place, can
produce such amazing images unlike anything a computer can
currently create. We only know so much, but scientists have
theorized the visual cortex being a sort of filter, and blender,
to stream the information into our consciousness. We're bound to
learn, in many more years time, just how much we've
underestimated our own abilities as humans once again. Ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny (history repeats itself).
There are many examples to differentiate how the Human Visual
System operates differently than say, an Eagles. One of these
examples includes a snowflake, but let me create a new one.
You're in an airplane flying looking down at all the tiny
cars and buildings. You are in a fast moving object, but
distance and speed place you above the objects below. Now, lets
pretend that a plane going 100 times as fast quickly flies below
you, it was a blur wasn't it?
Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed
position in space time. If the plane that just flew by was only
going say, 1 times faster than you, you probably would have been
able to see it. Since your incredible auto focus eye had been
concentrated on the ground before it flew below, your visual
cortex made the decision that it was there, but, well, moving
really fast, and not as important. A really fast camera with a
really fast shutter speed would have been able to capture the
plane in full detail. Not to limit our eyes ability, since we
did see the plane, but we didn't isolate the frame, we streamed
it relative to the last object we were looking at, the ground,
moving slowing below.
Our eyes, technically, are the most advanced auto focus system
around - they even make the cameras look weak. Using the same
scenario with an Eagle in the passenger seat, the Eagle, due to
its eyes only using Rods, and its distance to its visual cortex
being 1/16 of ours wouldn't have seen as much blur in the plane.
However, from what we understand of the Visual Cortex, and Rods
and Cones, even Eagles can see dizzy blurry objects at times.
What is often called motion blur, is really how our unique
vision handles motion, in a stream, not in a frame by frame. If
our eyes only saw frames (IE: 30 images a second), like a single
lens reflex camera, we'd see images pop in and out of existence
and that would really be annoying and not as advantageous to us
in our three dimensional space and bodies.
So how can you test how many Frames Per Second we as Humans
can see?
My favorite test to mention to people is simply to look
around their environment, then back at their TV, or monitor. How
much more detail do you see vs your monitors? You see depth,
shading, a wider array of colors, and its all streamed to you.
Sure, we're smart enough to use a 24 frame movie and piece it
together, and sure we can make real of video footage filmed in
NTSC or PAL, but can you imagine the devices in the future?
You can also do the more technical and less imaginative tests
above, including the star gazing, and this tv/monitor test. A TV
running at only 30 FPS is picking up a Computer monitor in the
background in its view, and with the 30 FPS TV Output you see
the screen refreshes on the computer monitor running at 60 FPS.
This actually leads to eyestrain with computer monitors but has
everything to do with lower refresh rates, and not higher.
Don't underestimate your own eyes Buddy...
We as humans have a very advanced visual system, please
understand that a computer with all it's processor strength
still doesn't match our own brain, or the complexity of a single
Deoxyribonucleic Acid strand.
While some animals out there have sharper vision than us humans,
there is usually something given up with it - for eagles there
is color, and for owls it is the inability to move the eye in
its socket. With our outstanding human visual, we can see in
billions of colors (it has been tested that women see as much as
30% more colors than men do). Our eyes can indeed perceive well
over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device
(mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits).
Our eyes are also highly movable, able to focus in as close as
an inch, or as far as infinity, and have the ability to change
focus faster than the most complex and expensive high speed auto
focus cameras. Our Human Visual system receives data constantly
and is able to decode it nearly instantaneously. With our field
of view being 170 degrees, and our fine focus being nearly 30
degrees, our eyes are still more advanced than even the most
advanced visual technology in existence today.
So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we
be looking for? If current science is a clue, its somewhere in
sync with full saturation of our Visual Cortex, just like in
real life. That number my friend - is - well - way up there with
what we know about our eyes and brains.
It used to be, well, anything over 30 FPS is too much. (Is
that why you're here, by chance?) :) Then, for a while it was,
anything over 60 is sufficient. After even more new video cards,
it became 72 FPS. Now, new monitors, new display types like
organic LEDS, and FPDs offer to raise the bar even higher.
Current LCD monitors response rates are nearing the microsecond
barrier, much better than millisecond, and equating to even more
FPS.
If this old United States Air Force study is any clue to you,
we've only scratched the surface in not only knowing our FPS
limits, and coming up with hardware that can match, or even
approach them.
The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time,
used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small
changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft
was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second.
Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as
identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not
only proves the ability to perceive 1 image within 1/220 of a
second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
This article was updated: 7/27/2002 due to its popularity and
to reflect in more detail the science involved with our eyes and
their ability to interpret more than 60 FPS.
To Mike (and everyone else), from Dustin D. Brand...
[I]Second Part on next reply[/I]
#Post#: 49--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 10:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Human Eye Frames Per Second 2
05/24/2001 5:00:05 AM MDT Albuquerque, Nm
By Dustin D. Brand; Owner AMO
so, just how many frames per second can our human eye see past
100?
In my previous article (Human Eye Frames Per Second), I
mentioned I'd write another to settle once and for all just how
many frames per second our human eye is capable of seeing, so
here we are.
Motion Blur is so important in movies and TV programming
In my first article, I mentioned how important motion blur is
pertaining to frames per second. On Computers, this is
essentially non-existent. Motion blur in movies, which run at 24
frames per second are designed for the big screen projector,
which blasts movies to the screen, each frame in it's entirety
in the widescreen format one frame at a time. Because each frame
is filmed in a certain way, motion blur is used, meaning the
frames are not perfectly clear, they contain blur.
The blur used in todays movies will eventually be replaced by
completely digital movies (on very expensive screens, I should
know, I worked with the technology at age 16), and with the
advent of computer animation in movies, the process of replacing
the blur on the film in movies is becoming more and more
inevitable.
Computer's don't work this way (with blur that is), and
essentially neither does anything digital. With digital, you
either have an exact perfectly clear image, or an exact
perfectly blur image like in movies. From the transition from
movies to the TV, or DVD digital, an extra 4 frames are added
each second in a method called frame mixing, just to match
correctly the device it's being displayed on, your TV.
NTSC(American) and PAL(European) use different kinds of TV
formats, each with different refresh rates and resolutions.
640x480 for NTSC and 800x600 lines for PAL. With HDTV,
everything is digital, and essentially 60 frames now, but most
of these broadcasts use frame mixing, and until 2006 you won't
need to trash your regular TV, though it may be a good idea now.
As many of you know, pause a DVD film movie during movement,
or if you can a TV with your VCR and you'll see the blur (unless
the image is static to begin with). Pause an animation DVD, or a
cartoon on TV and you won't see the blur. Why is this so? Filmed
movies, and Filmed TV shows work by blurring their subjects,
actors, actresses, whatever. Filmed movies and TV are not taking
a PERFECT snapshot image of the subject, each image is a blur,
and a blur to the next giving the impression that everything is
moving seamlessly (if nothing is moving in the scene, you can
see a static image). In an animation or a cartoon, each frame or
image of the 24/30 frames per second is perfect, there is no
blur in the image - EVER.
I touched very briefly on autofocus Cameras, and even the
best most expensive cameras not even coming close to matching
the capabilities of our human eye in focusing. The professional
cameras you see reporters with are capable of taking pictures of
EXTREMELY fast moving objects in perfectly still quality at and
above 1/4000 of a second. What does a camera being able to take
4000 pictures in a second prove?
Our infinitely seamless world.
Professional cameras can take perfectly still pictures
without any blur, and like in the case of video cameras,
pictures with blur. So where is the limit? How quick can we take
a picture, and how slow can we take a picture? SLOW time
progressed pictures have been taken, you've probably seem them
at night where all the cars tail lights are in a streak. You've
probably also seen the "Photo finish" camera's take the winning
tell tale sign of a close horse race. What all of this really
means is that unless we slow time, or speed it up, there isn't
any blur in our world. That is of course unless you're drunk,
the room is spinning, or you're on some LSD trip. Ok besides
that.
Images in our world are infinitely streamed to us as I've
said before. Living in this 3rd dimension as we do, our eyes
able us to see depth/periphery, we can focus in very close, and
as far as infinity. So is there really a limit to how many
frames per second we can really see with our eyes?
Our limit, is there one?
Until someone proves me, all the scientists, optometrists,
and the like wrong, there is no limit to how many frames per
second our human eye can see. Theoretical limit yes, proven
limit, NO.
Think for just a second how dumb it would be to push the
limit on video displays, devices and the like if our eyes
couldn't tell the difference between an HDTV and a plain old TV
or a Computer monitor and a Plasma display. Ok, in that second
how many times do you think your eye "framed" this screen? The
number of times the screen refreshed? Nope, the number of times
your eye streamed this page to you, it's a number that is
potentially infinite, or at least until we understand the
complexity of our own mind. Just know that this number is much,
much higher than what your monitor is capable of currently
displaying to you, that is matching your own interpretation.
Our Brain is smart enough however to "exact" 24 frames into
motion, isn't it ignorant to say we can't distinguish 400, or
even 4000 into motion? Heh, the sky's the limit, oh wait, then
space...oh wait. Give us more, we notice the difference from
30-60, the difference from 60-120. It is possible the closer we
get to our limit, be there one, the harder it is to get there,
and there is a theory about this. Someone is across the room.
Take one full step towards them. Now 1 half step towards them,
then 1 half step of a half step, on and on until your 1 half of
each movement you take. Will you ever get there? That my friend
is open to debate, but in the mean time, will you take one step
towards me?
The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been
proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor
manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of
Frames Per Second. With a high quality non-interlaced display
(like plasma or a large LCD FPD) and a nice video card capable
of HDTV resolution, you can today see well above 120 FPS with a
matching refresh rate. With some refresh rates as high as 400Hz
on some non-interlaced displays, that display is capable of 400
FPS alone. Without the refresh rate in the way, and the right
hardware capable of such fast rendering (frame buffer), it is
possible to display as cameras are possible of recording 44,000
Frames Per Second. Imagine just for a moment if your display
device were to be strictly governed by the input it was
receiving. This is the case with computer video cards and
displays in a way with adjustable resolutions, color depth, and
refresh rates.
Test your limit, you tell me...
Look at your TV, or ANY image device, then look at the device
not looking at the image it is displaying, for example the TV
itself, or the Monitor itself. Tell me the image on the screen
is more clear, more precise than the image of the TV or the
monitor itself. You can't, that's why the more frames per
second, the better, and the closer to reality it really appears
to us. With 3d holograms right around the corner, the FPS
subject or maybe 3DFPS will become even more important.
The real limit is in the viewing device, not our eyes.
The real limits here are evidenced by the viewing device, not
our eyes, we can consistently pick up the flicker to prove that
point. In Movies the screen is larger than life, and each screen
is drawn instantaneously by the projector, but that doesn't mean
you can't see the dust or scratches on each frame. With NTSC and
PAL/SECAM TV's, each line is drawn, piece by piece (odd, then
even lines) for each frame and refreshes at the Hertz. The
frames displaying because of this is exactly the hertz divided
by 2 or (odd line 1 hertz then even line 1 hertz). Do a search
for high-speed video cameras and you'll find some capable of
44,000+ frames per second, that should give you a clue.
CRT's be it PC monitors or TV's have to refresh with rates,
known as the Hertz. Eye fatigue can happen because of the probe
or line effect that happens after prolonged viewing, yes your
eye sees this. Switch to your Periphery vision like I gave an
example for in my first article and you can see the refresh
rate. 60Hz and 50Hz also happens to be the frequency of the main
power of the countries that use these Hertz in the TV refresh
rates. Because of the way the technology works, by drawing each
line individually, your Frame Rate/Refresh rate (not your FPS)
is tied to your FPS.
If something is running at 60 FPS however your monitor is at 60
Hertz and is interlaced, which TV's are locked at, you're seeing
30 Frames Per Second. However, if you have a nice computer
monitor (NON-INTERLACED), and it's set to 120Hertz (72+ is
considered "flicker free"), and your video is running at 120
Frames Per Second, you're seeing exactly 120 Frames Per Second.
You may have heard that LCD's or Liquid Crystal Displays are
"flicker free". LCD displays are capable of showing their FPS in
a refresh rate, much like non-interlaced monitors are, example
75 Hertz is capable of 75 Frames Per Second. Technically,
because an LCD pixel/transistor is either true or false, this
technology is not only better, but faster than an electron gun
on a phosphor like in a CRT, thus virtually eliminating flicker.
Technically speaking: NTSC has 525 scan lines repeated 29.97
times per second = 33.37 msec/frame or roughly 30 Frames Per
Second at 60Hz BECAUSE it's INTERLACED.
Technically speaking: PAL has 625 scan lines repeated 25
times per second = 40 msec/frame or exactly 25 Frames Per Second
at 50Hz BECAUSE it's INTERLACED.
So how does 60Hertz relate in HDTV's? Well, with progressive
scanning (the XBOX supports this with it's NVidia GPU), each
frame is drawn on each pass meaning 60Hz supports 60 Frames Per
Second, but as you've learned although the hertz and FPS are
related, the hertz of the display does not necessarily mean that
it is the frames per second. Frames per second are determined by
the display device and how it draws each frame. Normal TV's
don't support progressive Scan and thus redraws half the screen
on each pass, first draws the odd lines (interlaced), then the
even = 30 Frames Per Second maximum.
As you've seen, it's not our human eyes, it's the display.
More on this is the fact between interlaced and non-interlaced
monitors. All computer CRT monitors are now made non-interlaced
(and have been for quite some time), meaning the entire frame is
refreshed at the refresh rate or Hertz. The frame is scanned all
at once, thus the refresh rate can equal the Frames Per Second,
but the Frames Per Second isn't going to go past the Refresh
Rate because it's not possible on the display. Just because a
video card is pushing 200 Frames Per Second, your display may be
at 100Hz meaning it's only refreshing 100 times per second.
Thus, the big misconception that our eyes can only see 30
frames or 60 frames per second is purely due to the fact that
the mainstream displays can only show this, not that our eyes
can't see more. For the time being, the frames per second
capable of any display device isn't even close to the phrase
"more than meets the eye".
Definitions of relevance:
CRT Cathode Ray Tube - The tube or flat tube making up a TV
which utilizes an electron gun to manipulate phosphors at the
front of the tube for varying color.
NTSC originally developed in the United States by a committee
called the National Television Standards Committee (525 lines).
PAL standing for Phase Alternate Lines (625 lines)
FPS - Frames Per Second - A Frame consists of an image
completely drawn to a viewing device, example: Monitor
HTML http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
HTML http://yoursmiles.org/psmile/pilot/p0504.gif
HTML http://yoursmiles.org/psmile/pilot/p0503.gif
#Post#: 50--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: Surly1 Date: October 12, 2013, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
FWIW, the author uses a lot of words to repeat himself a lot and
say ver y little.
What I got out of this was that the human eye can "see" up to
1/220 sec. based on USAF testing, yes? (My education taught that
military testing was pretty much the gold standard for psych and
human endurance testing).
"Motion blur" is a photoshop effect, a category of blur
adjustable under the "blur" tool. What the author consistently
confuses this with is "continuity of vision" which any child can
experiment with using one of those little flip cartoon books.
Haven't looked it up but I think Edison actually worked out the
frame rate of 24fps. Muybridge's morion studies may also have
contributed.
None of this has anything to do with bees, of course.
BTW, LOTS of content in here now, AG. Love what you've done with
the place. And RE's additional little tweaks.
Good stuff.
#Post#: 52--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: AGelbert Date: October 12, 2013, 10:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Surly. I'll keep adding bit by bit.
Agreed about the author being somewhat long winded. He claims
that film (not digital film but the exposure type film for
movies) actually has burred frames. Am I correct to assume hat
he is wrong? His assertion is that the blurring is actually
necessary for us to see it smoother than the flip page child
frame by frame type collection of still photos.
I saw some of those early stop image animations with puppet
soldiers made in the 1940s (out there on u-tube someplace). They
take a photo, then move all the puppets and animal figures a
tiny bit and then take another picture and so on and so forth.
It looks jerky no matter how small the movement.
Doesn't this mean that blur is needed or does it mean we just
have to jack up the frame rate to 220/sec? I have been piloting
an aircraft when a blur goes by of another aircraft I wasn't
focused on. Maybe the blur is just a function of focusing more
than speed but it's interesting to think about it.
If they ever figure out how to decode the signals to the brain
from the eye, we will get a spectacular camera technology.
I do have a tendency to believe we "stream" rather than shoot a
series of still photographs we translate into motion in our
brains because:
1. I remember those strobe lights in the discos several decades
ago where each flash shows you a picture of reality but NOBODY,
even though they are dancing and jumping around, looks like they
are moving!
2. When I look at a physical object versus what is on the screen
of a computer or television, the resolution simply does not
compare. Reality seems to be a lot more nuanced, pixelated or
whatever than a frame by frame series of pictures.
3. Looking through a window is still far better in detail than
looking into a digital screen at a movie of looking out a
window. Something is still missing (besides 3D).
The only bearing all this has on bees is, well, uh... Give me
time, I'll think of something. ;D
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/170fs799081.gif
#Post#: 54--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bees are Smart
By: Surly1 Date: October 13, 2013, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=7.msg52#msg52 date=1381633725]
Agreed about the author being somewhat long winded. He claims
that film (not digital film but the exposure type film for
movies) actually has burred frames. Am I correct to assume hat
he is wrong? His assertion is that the blurring is actually
necessary for us to see it smoother than the flip page child
frame by frame type collection of still photos.
[/quote]
In a sequence of 24 (or 30) frames, it is possible, even likely,
that some of the fames will be blurred due to motion. THis would
be a function of the shutter speed of the camera. While the film
camera is recording 24 fps, the video camera is recording 30
fps, the shutter speed (which along with lens aperture controls
the amount of light reaching the focal plane) can be faster or
slower. You wouldn't stop much action at 1/30 second. Sometimes
when you ramp up shutter speeds you get some odd staccato-like
strobing effects-- think of race video, typically shot at high
shutter speeds.
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=7.msg52#msg52 date=1381633725]
I saw some of those early stop image animations with puppet
soldiers made in the 1940s (out there on u-tube someplace). They
take a photo, then move all the puppets and animal figures a
tiny bit and then take another picture and so on and so forth.
It looks jerky no matter how small the movement.
[/quote]
You're talking about stop action animation there, where a series
of stills is played together, flip book style to create the
illusion of movement.
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=7.msg52#msg52 date=1381633725]
Doesn't this mean that blur is needed or does it mean we just
have to jack up the frame rate to 220/sec? I have been piloting
an aircraft when a blur goes by of another aircraft I wasn't
focused on. Maybe the blur is just a function of focusing more
than speed but it's interesting to think about it.
/
I do have a tendency to believe we "stream" rather than shoot a
series of still photographs we translate into motion in our
brains because:
1. I remember those strobe lights in the discos several decades
ago where each flash shows you a picture of reality but NOBODY,
even though they are dancing and jumping around, looks like they
are moving!
2. When I look at a physical object versus what is on the screen
of a computer or television, the resolution simply does not
compare. Reality seems to be a lot more nuanced, pixelated or
whatever than a frame by frame series of pictures.
3. Looking through a window is still far better in detail than
looking into a digital screen at a movie of looking out a
window. Something is still missing (besides 3D).
[/quote]
Part of what you are talking about is resolution. HD image sizes
are much larger than SD (standard definition) sizes. At the
standard data rate for HD (19.4MB/sec. according to memory) you
can fit five SD channels into the space occupied by one HD
stream. And no, I am not a video engineer, but my job has
required I pick up a certain amount of this arcana.
Now the equipment manufacturers are pushing new data-rich lines
of image acquisition, 4K and 8K, which besides requiring
escalating amounts of memory and computer processing power to
handle and manipulate, seem to be nothing so much as a solution
shopping for a problem. I hope to be well retired before having
to transition another production facility to one of these data
monsters. 4K appears to be the developing standard for feature
filmmakers using digital acquisition.
For comparison, a chart--
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/8K_UHD,_4K_UHD,_FHD_and_SD.svg/1280px-8K_UHD,_4K_UHD,_FHD_and_SD.svg.png
#Post#: 102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome!
By: AGelbert Date: October 18, 2013, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome anti-republocrat! ;D
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-060.gif<br
/>Feel free to post on any subject you wish. Stimulating
discussion is encouraged. Our job is extract Homo sapiens from
the miasma of stupidity and tyranny that we have been visited
with by allowing our psychopathic predator humans to run ragged
over the planet and its resources.
[quote author=jdwheeler42 link=topic=559.msg98655#msg98655
date=1457151099]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg98643#msg98643
date=1457141307]
ALL major industrial high thermal heat, beat and treat processes
ALREADY use electrical furnaces because those are the most
efficient for processing and manufacturing metals and their
alloys. So ALL of heavy industry, except for back up generators
than can run on ethanol, can be powered by ELECTRICITY.
[/quote]
I think that is a real "killer app" for kickstarting demand,
making ethanol-powered ICE electrical generators. It's
something that can be done today by someone with good
engineering skills (or enough money they can hire someone with
such skills). Alas, I have neither the skills nor the money.
But one thing that makes ethanol ideal for back-up generators is
that the fuel can be stored indefinitely without special
processing; even with additives gasoline can only last a couple
years in storage. (Propane itself does not degrade with
storage, but the seals do, so you can find your tanks empty even
though you never used them.)
[/quote]
I suspect that Brazil my have some generator models that run
exclusively on ethanol. They already require their filling
stations to have at last one E100 (100% ethanol - illegal in
the USA - LOL!) pump. So if they have a large percentage of cars
running on it, it's not a big step to rig up a car engine to run
on ethanol.
I'll check around when I get some time. To me, the ultimate
poison pill ;D for the fossil fuel industry in the USA would be
a legal internal combustion engine made with alloys that cannot
handle high temperatures (i.e. VERY cheap to manufacture due to
less tempering required and also because it requires 30% LESS
metal - weighing at least 30% less). Any gasoline use would
warp the block and/or the heads. So, they would have to be
placarded with the "ETHANOL (E!00) ONLY" warning stating that
any use of gasoline voids the warrantee.
The same thing applies to natural gas or LPG. LPG and Methane
burn cleaner than gasoline but the waste heat problem, while not
being as bad, still requires high heat handling alloys and over
engineering we have in ALL our fossil fuel powered internal
combustion engines today.
Of course the USA will be the last to allow such an ethanol only
engine across the border. The feds will arrest you for carrying
"non-fuel grade" fuel (i.e. if you can drink your fuel, Lord
Lucifer and the Fossil Fuel Government will frown on you with
extreme prejudice
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).
The fossil fuelers will never admit that the waste heat of
fossil fuels, so necessary for them to claim they have a "higher
energy density" than ethanol, is useless for obtaining
mechanical WORK from an engine AND SUBTRACTS from engine power
BECAUSE some of the engine energy must be used to COOL the
engine.
Hess's Law of enthalpy of formation, the one Charles Hall adores
and the one used for just about ALL of the assumptions on laws
of thermodynamics in science today, classifies ALL heat, whether
waste heat or not, as ENERGY. This is true. But if you can't use
some of that energy to do work, and if that energy you can't use
actually INTERFERES with you doing work (i.e. SUCKS ENERGY from
the energy that is useful in order to keep the engine from over
heating), then basing ERoEI on Hess's Law is thoroughly
misleading.
finally, Hess's Law is not used as it should be to subtract the
energy required to bio-remediate the damage that pollution
products from fossil fuels cause. Externalizing those costs as
if they did not require an energy input to assure a viable
biosphere is an insult to the laws of thermodynamics. It's
fossil fuel industry cherry picking, not science.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216161405.jpeg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome!
By: RE Date: October 26, 2013, 12:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nice job sprucing up the Homepage with more Photos AB!
RE
#Post#: 165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome!
By: AGelbert Date: October 26, 2013, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif
RE. ;D
I drew the sad face on the moon with a tear. Nice touch if I do
say so myself. [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/files/2011/09/Happy-cat.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Welcome!
By: AGelbert Date: October 26, 2013, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome GCHandy! [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://www.pp33.cc/uploads/allimg/130708/5-130FR22H00-L.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Since I live in Vermont,
HTML http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif
a state that was a republic for a while, I think I understand
how you might feel.
Regardless of our political situation, if we don't get the 1% to
accept their responsibility to fund the lion's share of a global
transition to 100% Renewable Energy, we aren't going to HAVE a
viable biosphere to fight over. :(
I am interested in your take on the article below. :)
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 3
(Conclusion and Recommendations)
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg149/#msg149
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page