Let's pray he can do it!

something like 24 fps?

Well that's the begininng of my thought last night, as I watched some movie or other with (e:matthew). The films we use nowadays show 24 images within every second (used to be much less, that's why old films seem to flicker). So I asked myself what kind of boundary was this. Logic tells us that every second can be broken down into an infinite amount of intervals, thus an infinite amount of scenes or frames. Our photoresistors (the cones and rods in our eyes) are only able (programmed?) to recognize a certain number of images in every second. But, I thought there are other animals that would have to recognize more. Think of a humminbird or dragonfly whose wings are beating hundreds to thousands of times per second. Our eyes can barely catch one in full tilt, yet they glide effortlessly, avoiding obstacles and visiting barely visible nectar goblets.They must see faster, right? (e:Matthew) and I couldn't agree on the answer, so I looked it up.

If you look up Frame Rate Wikipedia presents you with the very scientific-sounding term Flicker fusion frequency and its related link, Flicker fusion threshold both physiological concepts, as opposed to purely physical concepts. The flicker fusion threshold or flicker fusion rate determines the rate at which humans (and supposedly animals/aliens) percieve light. "Light that is pulsating below this rate is perceived by humans as flickering; light that is pulsating above this rate is perceived by humans as being continuous." Humans tend to have a flicker fusion frequency threshold of between 50-75 hertz (which means light pulsing between 50-75 times per second will be seen as continuous). Since this rate would require Disney to hire three times the number of animators it now employs, camera shutters are arranged to interrupt the flow of light 2 to 3 times per second which projects those 24 frames at 48-72 light blips per second. Wow!

Apparently pigeons have been shown to have a higher threshold than humans (don't ask me which tests were used to determine this), and other mammals possess more rods and cones in their eyes than humans. All of which means it's entirely possible that the hummingbird is seeing much faster than we are.

Is seeing twice as fast like living twice as long? Think of all the stuff flying by right now that you're not even bothering to perceive. Your computer could have de- and re-materialized 97 times in the last second and you wouldn't have even noticed!

(e:southernYankee)? [inlink]southernyankee,177[/inlink]

Not to sure myself but if it was, then I have a whole CD of them. I stoled it from (e:Hodown) as she chillaxed at our new pad.

Dear (e:twisted),

I think that the tea(pot?) cozy is not only an excellent idea but also wonderfully tasteful and utterly practical. [inlink]twisted,160[/inlink]

And, we'd hate to lose you on the site, though I appreciate the difficulties of keeping up with multiple blogs. Maybe one in five (or ten) on here? A limited twist but better than no twist. Yo? Get me drift, matey?

And the obligatory admonition to self: no writing posts when you're *insert inebriated state here*.

Just one day! I thought it was gonna sit on my table for a week as I slowly plodded away. Sheesh, I guess I need the 5000 piece instead of the 1000 piece. Or maybe a job would do... :)