h a l f b a k e r yIncidentally, why isn't "spacecraft" another word for "interior design"?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Sometimes reality is either too much to
take in, or you are confronted by real
events that make you feel like you wish
you were a participant in a film.
24 Frames per Second Glasses are a set of
spectacles that you can switch on when
you want to make believe that what is
occurring in front
of your eyes is actually
not real, but a movie version of reality.
The glasses have a built in mechanical
shutter that mimics the action of a movie
projector.
A pocket held control enables other effects
to be activated, to further the illusion that
reality has been replaced by a film. Editing
markers randomly flash up for a split
second, along with the odd totally black
frame. All of this is accompanied by the
unmistakable sound of film tracking
through a projector.
On a particularly bleak day, rosy filters can
be activated, or a stuttering, scratchy
effect can be turned on to enable the
wearer to imagine they are in the innocent
sepia world of Harold Lloyd and Buster
Keaton.
24p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
23.976 frames per second [xenzag, Dec 06 2006]
'Noir' by K W Jeter
http://www.amazon.c...543?ie=UTF8&s=books
[DrBob, Dec 06 2006]
Like this?
http://www.bbc.co.u...u/2000/200012.shtml
[webfishrune, Dec 06 2006]
Mutoscope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutoscope
What-the-Butler-Saw [zen_tom, Dec 06 2006]
Kinetoscope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetoscope
[zen_tom, Dec 06 2006]
ezVision
http://www.itreview.../hardware/h1222.htm
I still prefer mine [xenzag, Mar 21 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Wouldn't most of the displays strobe horribly - and set off epileptic fits? |
|
| |
I think you have the "negative" view
switch on [Dub]. it's not what happens
at the
cinema, but since you are so concerned,
epileptics should wear with caution,
though I had thought 24fps was a "safe"
frequency. |
|
| |
Not to be used at the cinema... |
|
| |
For some reason, whenever I see the title, I think it has something to do with drinking glasses. |
|
| |
I used to do this as a child, all you have to do is blink really quickly - it's great when you're panning past repeating features like bannisters or railings or even just rotating your head from side to side. |
|
| |
I don't know if I can get 23-24 fps though - it's a lot more kinetoscopic (or mutoscopic on a bad day) than that. |
|
| |
Actually, most projectors have either 2- or 3-blade shutters, so your strobe rate should be 48 or 72Hz. |
|
| |
I had a physics prof who would make a "raspberry" sound with his lips while observing rotating machinery (motion of lips serves to jostle the eyes enough to create a strobed effect.) He had to "tune" the pitch to match the rotation... |
|
| |
//I had a physics prof who would make a "raspberry" sound ... to create a strobed effect//
That's very interesting: that means he could ultimately check the rpm of equipment quite accurately, if he carried an assortment of tuning forks around with him. |
|
| |
If one was using tuning forks, one could simply look at the equipment through the edge of the vibrating fork. |
|
| |
On the other hand, many people with perfect pitch can identify any frequency from 60Hz to 3,600Hz or so within about 5%. |
|
| |
Ah, that's a good idea. A tunable tuning fork (telescopic legs, with graduations) would provide a mechanical means for checking rpm. A small, cheap device for mechanics. |
|
| |
Tunable forks exist; they use a sliding weight on each leg (the weights slide independently, but the fork won't work well if they aren't set the same). |
|
| |
zen_tom, I did that too. I think I get about 5 or 6 fps. Especially nice while riding bicycle. Oh and riding with your eyes closed is interesting too. |
|
| |
amazingly when I go to polarized three dimensional movies I see things similar to what normal people are likely aware of |
|
| |
I have something like monocular vision; one eye is highly dominant, thus I see things kind of flat like a magazine |
|
| |
when I go to a polarized glasses movie I see three dimensional space; there is depth n curves women are marvelous |
|
| |
That is interesting. I wonder how the polarised glasses override the normal dominance of one eye - for therein lies a difference, whatever it may be, between real life and artificial 3D. |
|
| |
Or 29.97 dropframe for that NTSC effect (with some weird colour filters for the full-blown simulation). |
|
| |
{notes that there may be something psychologically telling about this idea} |
|
| |
Ordinary glasses with the lenses taken out
should be good for 1080p HD. |
|
| |
doesn't the human optic system already do that ? albeit at 60fps or so |
|
| |
I'd like 3D glasses, please. Each lens
would deflect its image outward (ie, away
from the nose) by half an inch or so,
creating an exagerated feeling that
everything was further away and, through
the brain's automatic distance/size
compensation, larger. |
|
| |
Anybody read any Douglas Adams? Peril sensitive glasses do, somewhat, the same thing. Except, instead of being a constant mellowing of reality, they just turn dark when your body is in extreme peril, so you can enjoy the non-mortal-danger moments of your life to the fullest.
And the tuning fork thing > My father tunes his guitar off of a t.v. display. I don't know which string, but apparently the frequency of one of them is the same as (or more likely proportional to) the particular note. |
|
| |
For the effect of film, each frame needs to be still. |
|
| |
So flapping a projector shutter away won't work, you'd need to buffer and display still images. |
|
| |
So you'd be reprojecting video into the eyes. |
|
| |
Which dilutes the reality of glasses, since then you are just watching/wearing video equipment. |
|
| |
Nobody wants the eyestrain, plus most people who have LASIK surgury can no longer focus on an image displayed on a lens a few centimeters before their eyes. |
|
| |
[mylodon], you are quite right in all
respects except correctness. |
|
| |
Suppose you have shutters that open
for about 5msec every 40msec (ie,
about 25 times per second). Your eye
will receive about 1/8th of the normal
amount of light, but you will scarcely
notice this: your pupils will dilate a
little, and your visual cortex will make
up the difference. (If you doubt this,
bear in mind that there is a thousand-
fold difference in light intensity
between a sunny outdoors and well-lit
room). |
|
| |
So, you will see an approximately
normal light level, but you will be
seeing only a 5msec 'slice' of every
40msec of time. To a close
approximation, the effect will be the
same as that of watching a film at
25fps. |
|
| |
see link for digital version I just found in a
copy of a Macworld magazine from last
year |
|
| |
Why, thank you, [MaxwellBuchanan]. |
|
| |
The human eye is sensitive to high frame rates. For instance, let us suppose we have some fancy xenzag glasses that operate at 1fps. We will notice movement between shutter open and shutter close. Is this not true? If it is a digital projector, it effectively stays open the entire frame length and you will very obviously see movement in the frame. |
|
| |
If it is a film projector, only a fraction of that time. However I believe this is still long enough to feel movement (even subconciously) within the frame, especially if there is a lot of fast action going on. |
|
| |
Perhaps not so much if the human eye cannot actually notice movement in a smaller timespan then 5ms. I couldn't find any references for that. |
|
| |
Regardless, and additionally, the time the shutter is closed interferes with blur. In film, blur is added as a still effect on film. |
|
| |
So I would suggest both percieved motion within a frame and a different perception of blur would interfere with these glasses accurately representing the feel of film. |
|
| |
None of what you said, I think, disproves my point, as it was already assumed. |
|
| |
I'm reasonably sure that you're
substantially wrong. |
|
| |
Yes, there will of course be some
movement within a 5ms interval.
However, this will be relatively small
compared to the unseen movement in
the remaining 35ms. I contend that
the discontinuity between frames will be
more apparent than the movement
within frame, leading to an effect
chaldently similar to that of film. |
|
| |
Incidentally, a strobe running at 25Hz,
with a flash duration of a few
milliseconds, creates much the same
effect. |
|
| |
Not the effect of film. A strobed room, perhaps. You certainly won't get the same effect with blur. |
|
| |
Also, film projectors often display each frame twice to increase the flickering to a frequency that bothers the viewer less. |
|
| |
With film, a frame that displayed twice is the same both times; it is still. |
|
| |
With 23.976 glasses, the frame changes every time. |
|
| |
This you would notice, because it effectively doubles the data frame rate from 24fps to 48fps, which is easily noticable to the human eye. |
|
| |
So now we have three things; movement within the frame, blur, and the effect of the double-bladed rotary shutter. |
|
| |
" Who do you prefer, Oasis or Blur?" Young
priest episode, Father Ted. |
|
| |