Porsche Cayenne stroboscopic effect

[Costas Athan]

actually I asked about this effect when I saw it on TV when I was 7 or 8 and had it explained to me. I understood it from that point forwad.

That said I see no reason for all this hate....

There is no hate. At least not from my side. But personally I think that it is an interesting phenomenon not only for people that are 3 years old. I didn't find another video on Youtube showing it manifestating on car wheels, so I uploaded.

 

[dawp]

any video camera can do this given the right conditions.

 

[Costas Athan]

any video camera can do this given the right conditions.

Of course. I described which are the right conditions in a previous post. But if you wait for it to happen randomly, it isn't so common. Of course it is easy to reproduce it in an experiment.

Personally I have uploaded 16 hours and 20 minutes of onboard videos (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL711EB3A514822547) and I don't remember to have captured again wheels to appear stationary.

 

[Railgun]

You are wrong. I'm in the opposite lane by just only half a meter maximum.

I'm wrong?

You're not in the lane? At all? You must have misspoken then. My mistake.

 

[Costas Athan]

I'm wrong?

You're not in the lane? At all? You must have misspoken then. My mistake.

I'm just a little. Not more than half a meter. Which car I'm closer to? The Audi or the Porsche? If I'm close to both of them then the Lancer is 4 meters wide. But actually I'm closer to the Porsche. There are some meters separating the Audi and me.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's an optical phenomenon.

No it's not.
This is nothing but a capture of 30 images per second. There's nothing special going on here. Why do you not understand that? Your camera is capturing 1 frame every 1/30th of a second -- it isn't capturing any special phenomenon between the light bouncing off the wheel and the air or your windshield. The camera lens is capturing the light as usual, focusing it on the sensor as usual, and the camera is storing that data as usual.

THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL GOING ON HERE. YOUR CAMERA IS OPERATING NORMALLY. YOUR CAMERA IS CAPTURING 30 FRAMES PER SECOND AND YOU ARE PLAYING IT BACK AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND. IF YOU PLAY IT BACK AT 30,000 FRAMES PER SECOND THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU BROKE THE SOUND BARRIER. IF YOU PLAY IT BACKWARDS THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WENT BACK IN TIME. IF YOU PRINT OUT TWO FRAMES, THEIR SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TRAVELED BETWEEN TWO POINTS INSTANTANEOUSLY.

TURNING THIS:





IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THIS:





Damn, and I thought the American educational system was bad.

 

[Costas Athan]

Also the eye captures discrete images, like the camera. So nothing can qualify as an optical phenomenon?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Also the eye captures discrete images, like the camera. So nothing can qualify as an optical phenomenon?

The light isn't being modified here. You aren't capturing a rainbow -- white light being split into its component colors (which would be an optical phenomenon). All you have is 30 samples per second at some f-stop. That's it.
Do you understand the difference between light shifting and merely capturing a series of images?

You have ~120 still images of a car. Why the heck would you think that belongs on a physics forum?

 

[Ferzerp]

You have ~120 still images of a car. Why the heck would you think that belongs on a physics forum?

In a world where a light drizzle is an "OMG MONSOON!" anything is possible....

 

[Costas Athan]

The light isn't being modified here. You aren't capturing a rainbow -- white light being split into its component colors (which would be an optical phenomenon). All you have is 30 samples per second at some f-stop. That's it.
Do you understand the difference between light shifting and merely capturing a series of images?

You have ~120 still images of a car. Why the heck would you think that belongs on a physics forum?

We disagree only on the definition. Wikipedia lists as an optical phenomenon.

The stroboscopic effect is a visual phenomenon caused by aliasing that occurs when continuous motion is represented by a series of short or instantaneous samples.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscopic_effect

 

[Raduque]

Personally, I think a better use of this camera trick is making helicopter rotors look stationary.

 

[Costas Athan]

Personally, I think a better use of this camera trick is making helicopter rotors look stationary.

Most cameras have certain frame rates. You have to be lucky enough in order to succeed. In this case it's up to the blades rotational speed. You can't control it.

 

[repoman0]

Let me introduce you to my friend mr nyquist,,,

:thumbsup:

 

[Costas Athan]

In a world where a light drizzle is an "OMG MONSOON!" anything is possible....

That's a screenshot from the drizzle (according to you):

The car travels about 20 mph and the wipers are on high (as you can see in the video http://youtu.be/7Ti8a30XEZE?t=5m32s), they have just made a pass and the windscreen is full of water.

Keep trolling!

By the way in case you aren't trolling it isn't a bad idea to learn what a drizzle is:

Drizzle is a light rain precipitation consisting of liquid water drops smaller than those of rain, and generally smaller than 0.5 mm (0.02 in) in diameter.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drizzle

 

[Meghan54]

That's a screenshot from the drizzle (according to you):

The car travels about 20 mph and the wipers are on high (as you can see in the video http://youtu.be/7Ti8a30XEZE?t=5m32s), they have just made a pass and the windscreen is full of water.

Keep trolling!

By the way in case you aren't trolling it isn't a bad idea to learn what a drizzle is:

After watching the so-called monsoon you posted, in no point was I unable to see down the roadway. In fact, I was able to see quite clearly the road as far as it was visible.

If you want hard rain, try driving in a hurricane feeder band where pouring, blowing, driving rain reduces your visibility to feet instead of the several hundred yards of visibility you have in your video.

No one's trolling you and what you posted as a "MONSOON" on youtube certainly isn't. Of course, you may be indeed trolling about your video, and for that I'm sorry I bit. Then again, you may well be so uninformed and/or inexperienced with life that your video is just represents naivete on your part about bad weather.

Monsoon not found............

 

[Costas Athan]

After watching the so-called monsoon you posted, in no point was I unable to see down the roadway. In fact, I was able to see quite clearly the road as far as it was visible.

If you want hard rain, try driving in a hurricane feeder band where pouring, blowing, driving rain reduces your visibility to feet instead of the several hundred yards of visibility you have in your video.

No one's trolling you and what you posted as a "MONSOON" on youtube certainly isn't. Of course, you may be indeed trolling about your video, and for that I'm sorry I bit. Then again, you may well be so uninformed and/or inexperienced with life that your video is just represents naivete on your part about bad weather.

Monsoon not found............

The so-called monsoon I posted? My video is titled "Driving in heavy rain and hail storm". I never used terms like monsoon, hurricane, cyclone, typhoon etc. Read the entire description of my video (http://youtu.be/7Ti8a30XEZE). Also read all my posts of the topic Driving in a heavy rain and hail storm (onboard video). Other guys use these terms not me! And then the accuse me of being inaccurate...

I talked about heavy rain and storm and the meteorological report of the day agrees.

 

[Costas Athan]

Quick visibility comparison.

Both screenshots are from the same point of the road. Also both links start the videos at the same point of the road.


Sunny day:

Storm:

Sunny day video:

http://youtu.be/QJ6zSlIbyfM?t=1h33m28s


Stormy day video:

http://youtu.be/7Ti8a30XEZE?t=5m32s



I always try to give an accurate description of my videos, but even if my description is 10% or 20% or even 30% inaccurate, everyone who's talking about a sunny day, a drizzle or a hurricane is 1,000% inaccurate. That said, I get they are trolling.

 

[Murloc]

your screen wipers look like floppy dildos.

The Cayenne shouldn't have moved on the shoulder because it's a continous line but your move was okay because there was enough space, it's not your fault if he does illegal stuff. Although a picky policeman could have given you a fine anyway because you were slightly in the other line (as you said yourself), forcing the driver coming from the opposite direction to move a bit to the right. I think it was a bit tight but that's just my opinion.

 

[Costas Athan]

your screen wipers look like floppy dildos.

The Cayenne shouldn't have moved on the shoulder because it's a continous line but your move was okay because there was enough space, it's not your fault if he does illegal stuff. Although a picky policeman could have given you a fine anyway because you were slightly in the other line (as you said yourself), forcing the driver coming from the opposite direction to move a bit to the right. I think it was a bit tight but that's just my opinion.

I agree with you on most points.

The Cayenne moved on the shoulder to make me space. This road has very high traffic especially during Summer. It should be a freeway not a two-way road. Even if driving on the shoulder of a road is not legal, drivers do it to help the ones who overtake, in order to finish the maneuver safely. It is the bad design of the road which makes drivers brake the law in this case. They do it for a good reason. In the name of safety. They also do it to protect themselves from those who decide to overtake in a turn blindly.

The line in the middle is broken so you can drive over it, if it is safe. I don't think that I forced the Audi on the right. He was on that position from the start. He didn't move because of me.

It was a somewhat tight situation. But I am more closer to the Porsche than the Audi. That's the fact. Not the opposite way around.

 

[Howard]

nominated for 2013 Most Backfiring Thread Of The Year

 

[Costas Athan]

nominated for 2013 Most Backfiring Thread Of The Year

Well, I started it with good intentions.

 

[twinrider1]

I just don't get the excitement over it. Ok, it's neat for 2 seconds, but haven't we all seen stuff like this before?

In 1977, my turntable had a strobe to fine tune the speed. Looked like this...

And it wasn't new then. Any musician over 30 has almost certainly seen/used a strobe tuner.

 

[Costas Athan]

I just don't get the excitement over it. Ok, it's neat for 2 seconds, but haven't we all seen stuff like this before?

In 1977, my turntable had a strobe to fine tune the speed. Looked like this...

And it wasn't new then. Any musician over 30 has almost certainly seen/used a strobe tuner.

I did a search on Youtube with the words "stroboscopic effect car" and then another one with the words "stroboscopic effect wheels". Nothing relevant came up, so I thought I should upload my video.

 

[DominionSeraph]

We disagree only on the definition.

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.

 

[amdhunter]