From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6ff347a45435d9cdf7d6732cce96ec5e@snellwilcox.com>
From: "Steve Simon" <steve.simon@snellwilcox.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:20:46 +0100
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: RE: [9fans] A prick into the wasps' nest ;-)
In-Reply-To: <HOEHIDJJJINMLFPOLFJCMEJGDFAA.nigel@9fs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9b1659ce-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> There is some persistance (sic), but the human eye/brain
> is extremely sensitive to missing frames, or disturbed frame timing,
> so it is arguable that persistence makes a timing error worse.

Perhaps I am a pedant, but the missing frames are not the problem
but the disjointed motion is.

The human perceptual system has evolved to be good at predicting
where moving objects will go (eg cricket balls) we can even
"understand" second order changes (cars accelerating) but high
order or disjoint motion looks "wrong". This is a major
headache when designing motion estimators - people are very good
as noticing where it goes wrong (like your TV). 

-Steve