Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The Out-of-Focus Group.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



23.976 fps Glasses

Glasses that convert reality into a movie
  (+13, -7)
(+13, -7)
  [vote for,

Sometimes reality is either too much to take in, or you are confronted by real events that make you feel like you wish you were a participant in a film.

24 Frames per Second Glasses are a set of spectacles that you can switch on when you want to make believe that what is occurring in front of your eyes is actually not real, but a movie version of reality.

The glasses have a built in mechanical shutter that mimics the action of a movie projector.

A pocket held control enables other effects to be activated, to further the illusion that reality has been replaced by a film. Editing markers randomly flash up for a split second, along with the odd totally black frame. All of this is accompanied by the unmistakable sound of film tracking through a projector.

On a particularly bleak day, rosy filters can be activated, or a stuttering, scratchy effect can be turned on to enable the wearer to imagine they are in the innocent sepia world of Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton.

xenzag, Dec 06 2006

24p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
23.976 frames per second [xenzag, Dec 06 2006]

'Noir' by K W Jeter http://www.amazon.c...543?ie=UTF8&s=books
[DrBob, Dec 06 2006]

Like this? http://www.bbc.co.u...u/2000/200012.shtml
[webfishrune, Dec 06 2006]

Mutoscope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutoscope
What-the-Butler-Saw [zen_tom, Dec 06 2006]

Kinetoscope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetoscope
[zen_tom, Dec 06 2006]

ezVision http://www.itreview.../hardware/h1222.htm
I still prefer mine [xenzag, Mar 21 2008]


       Wouldn't most of the displays strobe horribly - and set off epileptic fits?
Dub, Dec 06 2006

       I think you have the "negative" view switch on [Dub]. it's not what happens at the cinema, but since you are so concerned, epileptics should wear with caution, though I had thought 24fps was a "safe" frequency.
xenzag, Dec 06 2006

       Not to be used at the cinema...
Ling, Dec 06 2006

       For some reason, whenever I see the title, I think it has something to do with drinking glasses.
Veho, Dec 06 2006

       I used to do this as a child, all you have to do is blink really quickly - it's great when you're panning past repeating features like bannisters or railings or even just rotating your head from side to side.   

       I don't know if I can get 23-24 fps though - it's a lot more kinetoscopic (or mutoscopic on a bad day) than that.
zen_tom, Dec 06 2006

       Actually, most projectors have either 2- or 3-blade shutters, so your strobe rate should be 48 or 72Hz.   

       I had a physics prof who would make a "raspberry" sound with his lips while observing rotating machinery (motion of lips serves to jostle the eyes enough to create a strobed effect.) He had to "tune" the pitch to match the rotation...
csea, Dec 06 2006

       //I had a physics prof who would make a "raspberry" sound ... to create a strobed effect//
That's very interesting: that means he could ultimately check the rpm of equipment quite accurately, if he carried an assortment of tuning forks around with him.
Ling, Dec 07 2006

       If one was using tuning forks, one could simply look at the equipment through the edge of the vibrating fork.   

       On the other hand, many people with perfect pitch can identify any frequency from 60Hz to 3,600Hz or so within about 5%.
supercat, Dec 07 2006

       Ah, that's a good idea. A tunable tuning fork (telescopic legs, with graduations) would provide a mechanical means for checking rpm. A small, cheap device for mechanics.
Ling, Dec 07 2006

       Tunable forks exist; they use a sliding weight on each leg (the weights slide independently, but the fork won't work well if they aren't set the same).
supercat, Dec 07 2006

       zen_tom, I did that too. I think I get about 5 or 6 fps. Especially nice while riding bicycle. Oh and riding with your eyes closed is interesting too.
jmvw, Dec 09 2006

       amazingly when I go to polarized three dimensional movies I see things similar to what normal people are likely aware of   

       I have something like monocular vision; one eye is highly dominant, thus I see things kind of flat like a magazine   

       when I go to a polarized glasses movie I see three dimensional space; there is depth n curves women are marvelous
beanangel, Mar 13 2008

       That is interesting. I wonder how the polarised glasses override the normal dominance of one eye - for therein lies a difference, whatever it may be, between real life and artificial 3D.
david_scothern, Mar 13 2008

       Why 23.976 and not 24?
AbsintheWithoutLeave, Mar 13 2008

       Or 29.97 dropframe for that NTSC effect (with some weird colour filters for the full-blown simulation).
wagster, Mar 13 2008


       {notes that there may be something psychologically telling about this idea}
phoenix, Mar 14 2008

       Ordinary glasses with the lenses taken out should be good for 1080p HD.
mecotterill, Mar 16 2008

       doesn't the human optic system already do that ? albeit at 60fps or so
FlyingToaster, Mar 17 2008

       I'd like 3D glasses, please. Each lens would deflect its image outward (ie, away from the nose) by half an inch or so, creating an exagerated feeling that everything was further away and, through the brain's automatic distance/size compensation, larger.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 17 2008

       Anybody read any Douglas Adams? Peril sensitive glasses do, somewhat, the same thing. Except, instead of being a constant mellowing of reality, they just turn dark when your body is in extreme peril, so you can enjoy the non-mortal-danger moments of your life to the fullest. And the tuning fork thing > My father tunes his guitar off of a t.v. display. I don't know which string, but apparently the frequency of one of them is the same as (or more likely proportional to) the particular note.
MikeD, Mar 19 2008

       For the effect of film, each frame needs to be still.   

       So flapping a projector shutter away won't work, you'd need to buffer and display still images.   

       So you'd be reprojecting video into the eyes.   

       Which dilutes the reality of glasses, since then you are just watching/wearing video equipment.   

       Nobody wants the eyestrain, plus most people who have LASIK surgury can no longer focus on an image displayed on a lens a few centimeters before their eyes.   

mylodon, Mar 19 2008

       [mylodon], you are quite right in all respects except correctness.   

       Suppose you have shutters that open for about 5msec every 40msec (ie, about 25 times per second). Your eye will receive about 1/8th of the normal amount of light, but you will scarcely notice this: your pupils will dilate a little, and your visual cortex will make up the difference. (If you doubt this, bear in mind that there is a thousand- fold difference in light intensity between a sunny outdoors and well-lit room).   

       So, you will see an approximately normal light level, but you will be seeing only a 5msec 'slice' of every 40msec of time. To a close approximation, the effect will be the same as that of watching a film at 25fps.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 20 2008

       see link for digital version I just found in a copy of a Macworld magazine from last year
xenzag, Mar 21 2008

       Why, thank you, [MaxwellBuchanan].   

       The human eye is sensitive to high frame rates. For instance, let us suppose we have some fancy xenzag glasses that operate at 1fps. We will notice movement between shutter open and shutter close. Is this not true? If it is a digital projector, it effectively stays open the entire frame length and you will very obviously see movement in the frame.   

       If it is a film projector, only a fraction of that time. However I believe this is still long enough to feel movement (even subconciously) within the frame, especially if there is a lot of fast action going on.   

       Perhaps not so much if the human eye cannot actually notice movement in a smaller timespan then 5ms. I couldn't find any references for that.   

       Regardless, and additionally, the time the shutter is closed interferes with blur. In film, blur is added as a still effect on film.   

       So I would suggest both percieved motion within a frame and a different perception of blur would interfere with these glasses accurately representing the feel of film.   

       None of what you said, I think, disproves my point, as it was already assumed.
mylodon, Mar 21 2008

       I'm reasonably sure that you're substantially wrong.   

       Yes, there will of course be some movement within a 5ms interval. However, this will be relatively small compared to the unseen movement in the remaining 35ms. I contend that the discontinuity between frames will be more apparent than the movement within frame, leading to an effect chaldently similar to that of film.   

       Incidentally, a strobe running at 25Hz, with a flash duration of a few milliseconds, creates much the same effect.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 21 2008

       Not the effect of film. A strobed room, perhaps. You certainly won't get the same effect with blur.   

mylodon, Mar 23 2008

       Bet you it will.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 23 2008

       Bet you it won't.   

       Also, film projectors often display each frame twice to increase the flickering to a frequency that bothers the viewer less.   

       With film, a frame that displayed twice is the same both times; it is still.   

       With 23.976 glasses, the frame changes every time.   

       This you would notice, because it effectively doubles the data frame rate from 24fps to 48fps, which is easily noticable to the human eye.   

       So now we have three things; movement within the frame, blur, and the effect of the double-bladed rotary shutter.
mylodon, Mar 24 2008

       Bet you it will.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 24 2008

       " Who do you prefer, Oasis or Blur?" Young priest episode, Father Ted.
xenzag, Mar 24 2008


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle