Blur Busters Forums

I think at a certain point it's a waste, as the persistence of the human visual system is a factor (the human visual system does have it's own form of motion deblurring, but I'm not sure what it's limits are).

tbh i think scientists out there have already thought of all these things before
for example i think for holograms to work properly we would need that sort of extremely low persistence

Reducing the strobe duration is not going to improve double-images.
If anything it would make them worse since each image will be more distinct.

If you're displaying a 60 FPS source and strobing at 120Hz, the strobes are still going to be 8.33ms apart no matter how long or short the strobe duration is.

Glide wrote:Reducing the strobe duration is not going to improve double-images.
If anything it would make them worse since each image will be more distinct.

Except that's not how physics work when you get past a certain point. At some point when you go way too low an opposite effect appears
It's like how numbers below 0 count upwards(e.g -1, -2, -3, -4). It's a common thing in mathematics and science and is consistent with the laws of the universe.

So, in short when you go way too low that opposite effect starts happening and the double-image effect should disappear entirely because it's way too fast for the human brain to pick up.

thatoneguy wrote:

Glide wrote:Reducing the strobe duration is not going to improve double-images.
If anything it would make them worse since each image will be more distinct.

Except that's not how physics work when you get past a certain point. At some point when you go way too low an opposite effect appears
It's like how numbers below 0 count upwards(e.g -1, -2, -3, -4). It's a common thing in mathematics and science and is consistent with the laws of the universe.

So, in short when you go way too low that opposite effect starts happening and the double-image effect should disappear entirely because it's way too fast for the human brain to pick up.

Reducing the strobe duration does not change the frequency of the strobe.
It's still operating at 120Hz.

And if you increase the frequency high enough that you no longer see the flicker, then it will be equal to a sample and hold display and start blurring the image again.

Glide wrote: Reducing the strobe duration does not change the frequency of the strobe.
It's still operating at 120Hz.

And if you increase the frequency high enough that you no longer see the flicker, then it will be equal to a sample and hold display and start blurring the image again.

Sigh...I give up, you clearly don't get physics

thatoneguy wrote:

Glide wrote: Reducing the strobe duration does not change the frequency of the strobe.
It's still operating at 120Hz.

And if you increase the frequency high enough that you no longer see the flicker, then it will be equal to a sample and hold display and start blurring the image again.

Sigh...I give up, you clearly don't get physics

Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence instead of saying that I "don't get physics" because it really seems like you're confusing strobe duration with strobe frequency.
i.e. Bringing the strobes closer together until we no longer perceive them as being separate images, rather than reducing how long each strobe lasts.

thatoneguy wrote:

Glide wrote: Reducing the strobe duration does not change the frequency of the strobe.
It's still operating at 120Hz.

And if you increase the frequency high enough that you no longer see the flicker, then it will be equal to a sample and hold display and start blurring the image again.

Sigh...I give up, you clearly don't get physics

You're completely wrong.
Do you know the difference between persistence and timing?
If you do, why don't you explain it?

thatoneguy wrote:

Glide wrote:Reducing the strobe duration is not going to improve double-images.
If anything it would make them worse since each image will be more distinct.

Except that's not how physics work when you get past a certain point. At some point when you go way too low an opposite effect appears
It's like how numbers below 0 count upwards(e.g -1, -2, -3, -4). It's a common thing in mathematics and science and is consistent with the laws of the universe.

So, in short when you go way too low that opposite effect starts happening and the double-image effect should disappear entirely because it's way too fast for the human brain to pick up.

What the hell did I just read?

Something tells me this thread will need some clean up.

Glide wrote: Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence instead of saying that I "don't get physics" because it really seems like you're confusing strobe duration with strobe frequency.
i.e. Bringing the strobes closer together until we no longer perceive them as being separate images, rather than reducing how long each strobe lasts.

Ok let me explain it in words you might be able to understand
If you flash the same image twice or more times at a speed which the human brain/eyes cannot detect the double image effect goes away. The reason we see double images when we double strobe is because the persistence is within our viewing/detection threshold.

There, you happy?