I say the human eye does see more than 24 fps, pan your head back and forth, no blurring like you get panning a camera. OK so I haven't RTFA but I recently read/search info on framerates. From what I gather 24 fps came about from movies particularly when the talkies became standard for motion pictures. What they settled on enough fps to have smooth action and matching audio but not too much as film is/was very expensive. But each frame is shown twice (refresh rate in the movie theatres is 48 Hz). I read 24 fps is needed so brain perceives as smooth motion but need to show each one twice to remove flicker effect. Those 16mm and silent films were less fps but not as cinema quality of major motion pictures.
Anyone have comments or corrections, jump in as many times I feel as if I'm still trying to figure out what and why of fps and refresh rates.
Then television came along, first 60 fps seems good (match with powerline freq) but too much bandwidth so they make it 30 fps but to reduce flicker, they did interlace. Framerate has smooth motion and interlace does the refresh rate like motion picture showing each frame twice. Then color TV comes along but as OTA bandwidth was fixed, they reduce framerate a little to 29.97 to insert chroma signal.
Then computers came along, why not use same CRTs as TV sets, so their framerate was 29.97 (but many simply rounded off to 30 when writing or talking about framerates). Then the flatscreens (VGA monitors) came along but used 29.97 to be compatible with existing computers, but refresh rate is 60 Hz to not have flicker effect. Gamers wanted higher framerates so 60 fps but I think it really is 59.94 fps.
I did some different FPS exercises with a CRT monitor and a Canon EOS camera. I set Canon to 30 fps (actually it is 29.97) and connected the video output to the monitor. I panned camera back and forth including viewing monitor. I did the same with Canon at 24 fps, there was noticable blurring or choppy on monitor when I panned camera back and forth. Viewing monitor with camera I can see those rolling bars like you see in the movies with TV set in background (aha, so that's what the 24/30 fps mismatch is). I set camera to 60 fps (actually 59.94), it seemed smoother view when panning back and forth though monitor is fixed 30 fps.
For many people, so what. However, I was looking at various cameras and spec sheets list framerates of 23.97, 24, 29.97, 30, 59.94, 60.... what's with all these variations? I don't think a camera can be set to exactly 30. Or is it sales and marketing people insists on lots more numbers for the spec sheets?
Those Cuban Exiles better shut the fuck up, because if we don't get Cuba on our side, Russia will, and I don't want to live through another Cuban missile crisis because some whiny right-wingers are so goddamn certain that if we keep turning the screws on Cuba, Fidel Castro will finally step down.
ummm, Russia (or Soviet Russia) don't have the resources to place missiles in Cuba like they used to have. Regarding Castro, he has outlived just about everyone trying to knock him off the island.
Seriously, even these days I can find enough quality shows and even movies to watch on YouTube.
but (at least for me) I have to use AT&T or comcast for internet service, which I find is marginal for watching video. Work site is great but that's not what work is for. Other than that, Youtube can be a huge time pit with so many interesting things posted by various people.
I've never bought a new car, always used cars (around 40K to 60K in mileage) and drive them till they drop (around 200K). Last one had 220K but failed smog check as one of cylinders had a leak of some sort. Other vehicles that got up to 200K I dumped because their transmissions failed (replacement costs more than the car). My latest is a 2008, I prefer an older because windows of new cars are getting smaller but yet MPG of this vehicle is much better than my previous vehicles.
It seems there are some people who buy a new car every two or three years, that's were those like me pick up what they don't want. Speaking of keeping cars for a very long time, I remember in 1980s a Volvo commercial, "with a large interior and a average lifetime of 16 years, this is the space vehicle that will take you to the 21st century!" showing one of their station wagons superimposed against a background of stars. I know a couple research scientists that owned this same type of Volvo. One even had the classic rack on roof with the bars wrapped with carpet to prevent scrapes on stuff they carry.
We must purge them completely every few years.
and replace them with corporate types like Wheeler! yes, regulatory capture at its finest.
Pictures of astronauts will be as quaint as black and white pictures of Victorian men with handlebar mustaches and top hats.
I think what will happen is astronauts will become a mythical character of sorts like the pirate and the cowboy. Though pirates and cowboys did exist, they were nothing like what is portrayed by Johnny Depp and John Wayne. I believe in a hundred years many people will have mixture of fact and fiction of the spaceman. In fact I encounter people these days who get 1960s astronauts confused with fictional characters.
And the problem isn’t even that Barbie isn’t a “real” computer scientist because she isn’t coding. (I am one of those mostly-non-coding computer scientists myself, though now I’m tempted to make a game about robot puppies shooting lasers anyway.) The problem is the assumption that she is a designer, not a coder, and the coders are boys. (There are also problems with nonsense explanations for computer viruses, taking credit for other people’s work, and inexplicable pillow fights.) I happen to study remix, so one of my first thoughts upon seeing this was: someone is obviously going to remix this. I figured, why wait? I also have at my disposal my roommate Miranda Parker, a student of Mark Guzdial, who studies computing education and broadening participation in STEM. So with her input, I rewrote the book with a slightly different spin. (I also kept her as a “computer engineer” even though she’s really more of a computer scientist, software developer, etc.) I hope you like this new narrative better, too!
I remember watching the episodes though got bored watching the same approaches and barrel rolls of colonial fighters. I remember seeing the racks of Tektronix test equipment. Front panels of that gear was real "space age" (though trying to find power switch the o-scopes was always a challenge, other controls were easy). I wonder if the company got extra business with so much of the gear "advertised."
When they did the remake, I found it amusing the only Battlestar that survived massive Cylon attack was Galactica because it was an old vintage ship (captained by an old guy with old school military thinking) with PDP-11 computers, Tektronix gear, Mocom-70 communications systems, etc. stuff that lack network systems so they were not hacked.
Getting back to Larson, I wonder what other ideas he had that never made it to the TV? Maybe they will find some story ideas, probably much better than typical remakes of decades old genres.
Funny. I always thought of Michelson as of one of the two guys involved in the "failed" mirror experiments that allowed A. Einstein to come up with the theory of Special Relativity.
What also impresses me is him and Morley were wondering how fast Earth was moving through space during the times of cowboys and indians. Because their mirror set kept producing same c, they continued to build more elaborate sets (which were more complex engineering feats).