EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/001502_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Fri Oct 27 10:50:17 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 3KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA199346217; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:50:17 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from shell.monmouth.com by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA198996203; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:50:03 -0700
Received: (from rcohen@localhost) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12320; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:43:58 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:43:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Cohen <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Lightwave Post <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GLOW and FIELD RENDERING QUESTION
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <Pine.BSD/[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Oct 1995 [e-mail] wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Robert Cohen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >My original point, was that since the human eye cannot detect an on to
> >off sequence of light (or image) which is faster than one tenth of a
> >second,
>
>     This has got to be wrong, since I and many/most of my colleagues have no
> problem seeing "flash frames" in the edit suite, and they are only 1/30th of
> a second.
>

NO, this information is not wrong.  What I should have said (now that I
re-read it) is that, with an "on to off" duration of 10th of a second
or faster, the eye would not detect of the off.  Yes you see the flash, but
the image of the flash, which was certainly faster than the 1/10 of a
second, will persist on you retna for a longer time.  For example, if you
were to wire a strobe light to a variable "per second" controller, you
would see, as you passed over the 1/10 per second mark (faster than) the
light would appear to be steadily on.  So, this being the case, the human
eye is kind of it's own "motion aliasing" device.  It is not until an
object gets close enough to the camera that one is able to detect
"different frames" due to the relativly faster speed.  Sort of like when
you zoom in tightly to your subject with a camcorder and notice that
keeping a steady shot is much more difficult.  The motion is exagerated (sp).
Also, stare into a fan which is spinning at a fast speed.  You don't see
individual blades, but one large, blurred object.  Same concept.

Therefore, the "apparent" resolution of a frame which was FR rendered
will not appear to have less resolution when viewed in REAL TIME.  And
this was the point I was making.

Hope this makes more sense ;))

***************************************************************************

Robert Cohen / Ocean Township NJ    Lightwave Animator / Video Editor

          [e-mail] / [e-mail]

***************************************************************************

--
Robert Cohen <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]