A_Son_of_God
Nemesis of the Trolls - Especially dumb ones
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2024
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 12
...Eadweard Muybridge.
Not a name anyone these days may be familiar with, unless maybe you've grown up in the south of England, in Surrey. But from lovers of horse racing through to photography students, it is a name synonymous with the ability to study things in great depth. It was Eadweard who was first known for presenting his moving pictures - "The Horse in Motion" - a compilation of photographs presented in a way that showed the motion of a horse, as though it was in motion. Here's a link to an article for your enjoyment, discussing his "zoopraxiscope".
www.time-lapse-systems.co.uk
...and here's the "video" of the horse running.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to be playing at approximately 7 frames per second, as it starts with photo 2, and runs through to number 16. I counted it doing this 10 times over 15 seconds.
He went on to develop many works from his over 100 000 images he'd gathered, to show this motion by way of pictures. It is this that we now see on a regular basis as videos, thanks to our now-known understanding of how hertz rate can fool the brain, tricking us into thinking we are seeing things in a continuous flow, yet being actual snapshots, all posted together. It appears
From his workings out, we've moved on to time-lapse photography of plants growing, and thanks to developments by the Laureate for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1999 - Ahmed Zewail - we now have the ability to capture the breaking of bonds in a chemical reaction using this time-lapse technique.
But it doesn't stop there. Just this year, we've had a release showing that we have the capacity to capture 156 TRILLION frames per second. Did you get that??? 156 000 000 000 000 frames per second!
So, here we are seeing how frame rate can affect how we perceive something that we simply cannot perceive any other way. In fact, scientific experiments are doing the opposite of this, in that these frame rates are being used in ways to see how the brain is tricked, and developing an understanding of the ways the human brain puts images together, and helps us in our recognition of perception.
It raises a question. Why?
Why do we have these capabilities? Why do we even live at all, if the amount of energy and complexity of understanding is based on precision in areas that are so infinitely complex (they go on and on and on, no matter how far we dig), when it would have been far easier for no matter to exist in the first place, let alone LIVING matter, and matter that can work together to understand the workings on of the universe, or so we say.
The simple fact that we have them should be something we are grateful for. But this article was on how the flow of time is an illusion as such, and how it tricks us - blinds us, even.
A simple minded person will state that they can see, and that is all that they believe in. Yet, it is these studies themselves that show - no, we don't actually see at all in that instance, if we want to be technical. We see bits of information in hertz, as such, and our brains fill in all the gaps. Frames per second, at least in a humanly, measured form of way of describing it to one another. Do all animals see in the same way? No! There are experiments showing that chimpanzees, for instance, have a higher capacity of recognising images on a screen at hertz rates greater than humans can even perceive. Here's a link to the experiment. The experiment wasn't specifically for this purpose, but showed that the way WE perceive things is not the same way chimps perceive them, and chimps fared much better than we do with what is true/false inasmuch as what they saw presented on a screen for a split second.
So, how we see things is a very complex procedure. What our eyes see and what our brain interprets are an amazing chain of receipt, parsing and reasoning. THAT is more closely what we see. In that former experiment, it also showed that us humans have a weakness, in that what we saw in a sequence, we forget about easily, or at least way more easier than the chimps, who seemed to have a retention rate for images seen previously. We though, we forget. This is one of the reasons for this article series, actually. Because what we're not seeing are things right under our noses, and have been explained and demonstrated over a long period of time, yet we are ignorant humans, and this may actually cost us our lives in the future...but that is for the next part of the article series. In the next series, we will focus on the "last days", and what we have seen, are seeing, and yet are not seeing at the same time.
Not a name anyone these days may be familiar with, unless maybe you've grown up in the south of England, in Surrey. But from lovers of horse racing through to photography students, it is a name synonymous with the ability to study things in great depth. It was Eadweard who was first known for presenting his moving pictures - "The Horse in Motion" - a compilation of photographs presented in a way that showed the motion of a horse, as though it was in motion. Here's a link to an article for your enjoyment, discussing his "zoopraxiscope".
The History of Time-Lapse Photography | Time-lapse Systems
There’s no denying that time-lapse photography is becoming an increasingly popular art from, utilised by everyone from nature documentary filmmakers...
www.time-lapse-systems.co.uk
...and here's the "video" of the horse running.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to be playing at approximately 7 frames per second, as it starts with photo 2, and runs through to number 16. I counted it doing this 10 times over 15 seconds.
He went on to develop many works from his over 100 000 images he'd gathered, to show this motion by way of pictures. It is this that we now see on a regular basis as videos, thanks to our now-known understanding of how hertz rate can fool the brain, tricking us into thinking we are seeing things in a continuous flow, yet being actual snapshots, all posted together. It appears
From his workings out, we've moved on to time-lapse photography of plants growing, and thanks to developments by the Laureate for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1999 - Ahmed Zewail - we now have the ability to capture the breaking of bonds in a chemical reaction using this time-lapse technique.
But it doesn't stop there. Just this year, we've had a release showing that we have the capacity to capture 156 TRILLION frames per second. Did you get that??? 156 000 000 000 000 frames per second!
So, here we are seeing how frame rate can affect how we perceive something that we simply cannot perceive any other way. In fact, scientific experiments are doing the opposite of this, in that these frame rates are being used in ways to see how the brain is tricked, and developing an understanding of the ways the human brain puts images together, and helps us in our recognition of perception.
It raises a question. Why?
Why do we have these capabilities? Why do we even live at all, if the amount of energy and complexity of understanding is based on precision in areas that are so infinitely complex (they go on and on and on, no matter how far we dig), when it would have been far easier for no matter to exist in the first place, let alone LIVING matter, and matter that can work together to understand the workings on of the universe, or so we say.
The simple fact that we have them should be something we are grateful for. But this article was on how the flow of time is an illusion as such, and how it tricks us - blinds us, even.
A simple minded person will state that they can see, and that is all that they believe in. Yet, it is these studies themselves that show - no, we don't actually see at all in that instance, if we want to be technical. We see bits of information in hertz, as such, and our brains fill in all the gaps. Frames per second, at least in a humanly, measured form of way of describing it to one another. Do all animals see in the same way? No! There are experiments showing that chimpanzees, for instance, have a higher capacity of recognising images on a screen at hertz rates greater than humans can even perceive. Here's a link to the experiment. The experiment wasn't specifically for this purpose, but showed that the way WE perceive things is not the same way chimps perceive them, and chimps fared much better than we do with what is true/false inasmuch as what they saw presented on a screen for a split second.
So, how we see things is a very complex procedure. What our eyes see and what our brain interprets are an amazing chain of receipt, parsing and reasoning. THAT is more closely what we see. In that former experiment, it also showed that us humans have a weakness, in that what we saw in a sequence, we forget about easily, or at least way more easier than the chimps, who seemed to have a retention rate for images seen previously. We though, we forget. This is one of the reasons for this article series, actually. Because what we're not seeing are things right under our noses, and have been explained and demonstrated over a long period of time, yet we are ignorant humans, and this may actually cost us our lives in the future...but that is for the next part of the article series. In the next series, we will focus on the "last days", and what we have seen, are seeing, and yet are not seeing at the same time.
