Below is a picture of the Chilean, Jose, lookin' like a ninja.
What is really happening: It is often a different phenomena between traditional film and electronic cameras. In the electronic camera, the image refreshes at a certain rate. This can be demonstrated by
opening the camera app and moving your iPod/phone (haven't had this on IPad). See how the top seems to refresh first? That is because it does. one can actually use this to get a picture where a fast moving object is only in one half of the photo. With a traditional camera, the blur is from the film being exposed during an amount of time, and thus making it impossible to have an object in only half oh the picture.
This brings up an idea of time, does time flow in increments (like the digital camera, where if you were lucky enough you could catch a place where time is still behind) or continuously flowing time (the traditional camera, where no matter how long you watch it, there is no distinct refreshing point). Thus far, if time does refresh, it does so faster than light can travel. Until scientist can find something that can travel faster than light in a vacuum, instantly that is, it is impossible to determine one or the other.
(fun fact: the human eye refreshes at a rate of 10 times per second, or once every deci-second (1/10th of a second). Thus, all moving objects are blurred slightly, if something moves 10 inches every second then the human eye would see the object 10 times between point 'A' and point 'B'.)
What do you think? Which is better, traditional or digital? Which theory is right, refreshing or continuous? Leave a comment below and let the battle begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment