Michael:
1) I have always understood that the theory of persistence of vision
works alongside the Phi effect--the former related to the physiology of
the eye, the latter to a psychological function of the brain.
2) Of course, neither of the above are satisfactory theories of how
individual images achieve motion, for they both hinge on the notion that
cinematographic motion is illusory. Why should we characterize it this
way? The very idea of illusion (with respect to filmmaking) is a 19th
century one; and I have found that students of film design are always
puzzled by the observation that their medium rests upon a
physiological/psychological trick. Films certainly don't appear
illusory, yet every textbook on film begins with a chapter on the basic
trickery of film viewing. Strange, I should think...
-Anthony Banks
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|