"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:06:39 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Precisely what I said,

Nope, there is no equivalent of a frame rate
with eyes. You don't get any reversal of the
rotation direction as you change the rotation
rate with eyes so there is no frame rate.

Only because the brain is clever and makes the most sense it can.

Nope, if there was any frame rate with eyes, the brain
couldn't do that. It clearly cant with flashing leds.

Obviously your eyes must be able to give your brain x number of images per
second.

They actually do that continuously, no frame rate.

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it
could see someone's lights.

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

It only takes one to cause an accident,

It clearly doesn't cause accidents. If it did,
the flash rate would be legally mandated.

and there's a lot of them.

Sure.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't
see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

I don't prefer or don't see?

You don't see reality when the flicker rate is
above your personal flicker fusion threshold.
Everyone has one, they just vary.

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

My brain shows me what I can see

Not when the flicker rate is faster than
your personal flicker fusion threshold.

and doesn't lie like yours.

Yes it does when when the flicker rate is
faster than your personal flicker fusion
threshold, just like with everyone else.

If it didn't you'd see all led car lights flickering and
you have correctly said that some of them don't.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

Nope, eyes don't have a frame rate. Trivial to
prove by observing that the rotation direction
never changes as the rotation speed is changed.

A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better.

Much worse in fact with car lights.

I don't want to be fooled,

You are anyway when the flicker rate is faster
than your personal flicker fusion threshold.

I want to know what is actually in front of me.

You don't when the flicker rate is faster
than your personal flicker fusion threshold.

They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes
can't.

Yours are the faulty eyes that see
flicker where no one else does.

The flicker is there, we're in agreement on that. I'd rather see what is
actually there.

You don't when the flicker rate is faster than your personal
flicker fusion threshold, just like with everyone else.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't
as good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs)

There is no equivalent for leds.

Of course there is, you could design a circuit for example that left each
one lit until the next frame.

They do. There is no persistence involved, not off state
except when that bit of the screen is meant to be black.

decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.

Problem is that produces smear with fast moving bits of images.

No, that's when the decay rate is slower than the frame rate.

Wrong.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

It's reality.

No it isnt when the flicker rate is faster than your personal
flicker fusion threshold, just like with everyone else.

Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've
changed.

So I don't see flicker with car lights. Great.

If your eyes are reacting slower than mine and see flicker, you presumably
also react slower to something you need to see, like brake lights.

Only by milliseconds.

I have done tests and my reaction time is about twice as fast as average.

Nothing to do with personal flicker fusion threshold
and its completely trivial to prove that by measuring
both as your reaction time changes as you get ****ed.
Your personal flicker fusion threshold doesn't change
as your reaction time changes. They are entirely
different phenomena.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

Your problem, as always. None **** me off.

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

Well they must have done something, because they looked way less
flickery
than a cheap 60Hz monitor.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each
illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen
burn.

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

No it doesn't.

Screen burn does.

I've got an old Benq LCD monitor here that gets it for about 10 seconds.

That's not screen burn.

I remember CRTs (on old Apple Macs (about Performa 475 era)) getting it
for about 10 minutes. It doesn't always last forever with either
technology.

Real screen burn does.