h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In a very frequently photographed place use lighting for less
than 1/60th of a second every few seconds to expose or make
appear an object. Only cameras will see the object this way.
In one out of every 600 vacation photos in a particular spot:
ET!
also useful for haunted houses.
More like 1/100th of a second.
http://www.psych.ny...entation_intent.pdf
[mouseposture, Nov 01 2010]
[link]
|
| |
But how are you going to mount a laser apparatus in the middle of the sky without it being visible? |
|
| |
I didn't realise the sky had a middle. |
|
| |
It’s in between the top of the sky and the bottom of the sky, I presume. |
|
| |
There's often clouds in the way. |
|
| |
You could, instead, put it 'way up in the middle of the air. |
|
| |
Why will people not see things if they're only illuminated for less than 1/60th second? Flashes from flashguns are much shorter than that and they're visible. |
|
| |
There's a lot written about tachistoscopic presentation of
subliminal visual images, but mostly in the psychoanalytic
and marketing literature; not strong on technical detail.
But I found a <link> that gives an actual figure for how
short
the stimulus presentation needs to be for people not to
see
it: seems to be about 10 msec. |
|
| |
Also, the trick probably only works if the image has about
the same average brightness as what it replaces (c.f.
[hippo]'s comment on flashguns) so you'd have to project
*continuously* and tachistoscopically *replace* the image,
rather than merely projecting tachistoscopically. |
|
| |