Porsche Cayenne stroboscopic effect

[etrigan420]

Sunny day:

Why is it that you can't stay in your lane on a sunny day with clear visibility?

It must be a "Med" thing, Italians do the same thing with their "Magical Middle Lane" driving style.

 

[Costas Athan]

Why is it that you can't stay in your lane on a sunny day with clear visibility?

It must be a "Med" thing, Italians do the same thing with their "Magical Middle Lane" driving style.

Because I'm getting out of a turn, and as the opposite lane isn't occupied I take it with a more optimal line.

I suppose you think that I'm halfway on the opposite lane, right? I explained before that the angle of the camera and the wide field of view make things look different from what really are. But if you can't take my word on it, here is an example.

I'm in the opposite lane here too? Doesn't it seem so? So there will be a crash, huh? Check the video for yourself and see what happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ6zSlIbyfM

No crash. And on this road only one car can fit tightly in each lane. There is no more space here as on the road of my first post. So you have too think better before you post something.

 

[Costas Athan]

No, you think it belongs in a physics forum. So we seem to be in disagreement over whether you're an idiot who has no clue as to what "physics" is.

All you have is a sequence of still images. The illusion of motion or lack thereof does not make it anything other than a sequence of still images. Please get over yourself.
Also, learn what "rain" is.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965AmJPh..33..506H

A paper of Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder on stroboscopic effect that was published on American Journal of Physics, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp. 506-506 (1965).

Maybe both the physicists of University of Colorado and the physicists of the journal are idiots too. What can I say? You know better...

It in no way belongs there.
If I take a picture of my mouse, move the mouse around, move it back to the original position, and take another picture, the appearance of it being stationary in the two pictures isn't a physics phenomenon.
If I have two mice and I swap them out in between pictures, the appearance of one stationary mouse isn't a physics phenomenon.

This is only an optical illusion. As far as physics is concerned, you have 30 mundane frames per second.

You are way too impressed with this.
If you think the illusion of a stationary wheel belongs in a physics forum, then this must warrant a Nobel Prize:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzpChbJfrCY

http://www.rollins.edu/physics/courses.html

And what do we have here?

PHY 117 An Introduction to Lasers and Light: Touches upon paint mixing, stage lighting, visual illusions, random-dot stereograms, lenses and curved mirrors, optical interference, iridescence, mirages, rainbows, and aurora. Uses interactive demonstrations to explain common and unusual optical effects. Intended for non-science majors with no prior knowledge of physics.

A physics course dealing with visual illusions? What is going on? Visual effects don't have to do anything with physics. You said it yourself. Maybe they have mixed things up too. Please inform them that they are doing a big mistake.

 

[DominionSeraph]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965AmJPh..33..506H

A paper of Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder on stroboscopic effect that was published on American Journal of Physics, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp. 506-506 (1965).

Maybe both the physicists of University of Colorado and the physicists of the journal are idiots too.

No, just you, as you can't tell the difference between florescent lighting and a video camera. A video camera is supposed to take still frames at its frame rate, while a florescent light is designed to light, not flicker with resultant stroboscopic effects.

Keep digging yourself into that hole, though. LOL.

Hey, look everyone, physics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqT0iFZifgw

But if you can't take my word on it, here is an example.

Oh God, he doesn't understand parallax. What the hell is this guy even doing here?

 

[Costas Athan]

No, just you, as you can't tell the difference between florescent lighting and a video camera. A video camera is supposed to take still frames at its frame rate, while a florescent light is designed to light, not flicker with resultant stroboscopic effects.

Keep digging yourself into that hole, though. LOL.

Hey, look everyone, physics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie2d2qxxDCY

You think so? Here --> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954AmJPh..22..394D is another paper on stroboscopic effect, that examines if from the point of view of an observer. If you aren't yet convinced this has't any fluorescent lights in it.

edit: It was published on American Journal of Physics -- September 1954 -- Volume 22, Issue 6, pp. 394 and analyzes the stimulus.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You think so?

Yes. A 30fps camera capturing images at 30fps is not noteworthy. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. Get over it.

 

[Costas Athan]

Yes. A 30fps camera capturing images at 30fps is not noteworthy. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. Get over it.

I don't argue about the way a camera works. But I don't understand what you want to say.

Obviously physics deal with the Stroboscopic effect. What are you saying? That the deal with all the aspects of the phenomenon except the one that includes a digital camera?

 

[DominionSeraph]

I don't argue about the way a camera works.

Yes, you are, as you think this is somehow special. It is just a camera taking still images at 30fps, though. The content is also nothing special -- it is just a car. Why the hell do you think any of this would belong on a physics forum?
Somebody hurry over and make sure he has VSYNC on. If he ever sees screen tearing he's going to be calling NASA about it.

Dude, get a life and stop watching video of your driving. Especially stop posting it.

 

[Costas Athan]

Yes, you are, as you think this is somehow special. It is just a camera taking still images at 30fps, though. The content is also nothing special -- it is just a car. Why the hell do you think any of this would belong on a physics forum?
Somebody hurry over and make sure he has VSYNC on. If he ever sees screen tearing he's going to be calling NASA about it.

Dude, get a life and stop watching video of your driving. Especially stop posting it.

Let me ask you the question this way.

Let's assume it's the first time the phenomenon is observed and you want to find an explanation why the wheels appear stationary on film.

Which scientist would you ask for an explanation (from the known fields of science)?

And don't tell me again that it is a series of images. Everything that is scientifically observed and explained requires a ceratin procedure of proof that includes experiments. So which science should deal with the observation that a wheel appears stationary on a film?

 

[Costas Athan]

Oh God, he doesn't understand parallax. What the hell is this guy even doing here?

How did you reach that conclusion? I'm the one who says that things appear different, because of the angle of filming and also the FOV.

You are wrong. I'm in the opposite lane by just only half a meter maximum. The 170 degrees field of view (I have set GOPRO to Wide) makes you misjudge distances. Also the mounting position of the camera (right side) contributes to it.

I suppose you think that I'm halfway on the opposite lane, right? I explained before that the angle of the camera and the wide field of view make things look different from what really are.

Check the initial posts the are both unedited.

If I didn't understand the concept I would say that things appear just as they are filmed, but in every post I'm writing exactly the opposite.

Maybe you want to say that the ones who claim I'm driving on the opposite direction don't understand it. If there is a post where I say that angles appear unchanged please quote it. I really want to find out where did you see it!

 

[Costas Athan]

Let me ask you the question this way.

Let's assume it's the first time the phenomenon is observed and you want to find an explanation why the wheels appear stationary on film.

Which scientist would you ask for an explanation (from the known fields of science)?

And don't tell me again that it is a series of images. Everything that is scientifically observed and explained requires a ceratin procedure of proof that includes experiments. So which science should deal with the observation that a wheel appears stationary on a film?

@DominionSeraph

You didn't answer my question! So far I understand that you believe that it doesn't belong to the field of physics. OK. We know where it doesn't belong. But you haven't tell us in which field it does belong.

My question is simple. A scientist of which field should orchestrate the experiment to give a scientifically acceptable proof of the mechanism of the phenomenon? Because the fact is that the camera makes the wheels appear stationary, so there must be a science field that should document our theories experimentally. It doesn't matter if the phenomenon can be easily explained. A scientific documentation is always necessary. If our theories aren't experimentally proven they are just theories.

So which field of science is the one which should deal with the problem I describe in my quotation?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Let me ask you the question this way.

Let's assume it's the first time the phenomenon is observed and you want to find an explanation why the wheels appear stationary on film.

Which scientist would you ask for an explanation

Why do you not understand that this is just a timing relationship? It requires no scientist for explanation.

If I take a picture of my car in the garage, take it out and drive it, park it back in the same spot, take another picture, take the car out and drive it again, park it back in the same spot again, and take another picture, the pictures will not show it moving. This is not some mystical phenomenon. It does not require a youtube video, nor does it belong on a physics forum. And this "phenomenon" certainly doesn't belong in The Garage.

 

[Costas Athan]

Why do you not understand that this is just a timing relationship? It requires no scientist for explanation.

If I take a picture of my car in the garage, take it out and drive it, park it back in the same spot, take another picture, take the car out and drive it again, park it back in the same spot again, and take another picture, the pictures will not show it moving. This is not some mystical phenomenon. It does not require a youtube video, nor does it belong on a physics forum. And this "phenomenon" certainly doesn't belong in The Garage.

It's OK, if you don't want to answer. It would only take one word. A geologist for example, or a chemist or a physicist. But one thing is certain, every physical phenomenon can be experimentally proven even if it is ridiculously simple. If it can't be then it's not physical or it remains a theory.




Ok enough is enough... This turned into a thread for another area and I do not want another so leave it be...

AT Moderator
Bartman39