I wonder how many copies of this complacent bull**** went out...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

A small amount of camera wobble (in drama) is meant to mimic what the
eye sees, since our heads ain't tripod mounted.

Surely that's not right. Our brains process the incoming data with
exceptional sophistication, both to control eye movements to compensate
for our body movements, and also to present a "cleaned up" image to our
consciousness. That's why we never see pans when our eyes change their
angle of gaze.

When I walk along, the world most certainly does NOT wobble. When I
watch a TV picture where the cameraman is walking along, it most
certainly does.

--
SteveT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

A small amount of camera wobble (in drama) is meant to mimic what the eye
sees, since our heads ain't tripod mounted. And is fine with me *provided*
it isn't overdone. Of course you could say, if you notice it, it is
overdone.


The image I see from my eyes does not wobble about because the brain
processes the information and removes the wobble. What I perceive is
absolutely wobble-free. This persists until the system failure point,
which is a cliff-edge effect occurring after about eight pints. System
failure can also manifest itself as a rapid sideways or downwards
movement of the image, or in extreme cases it might rotate rapidly, or
include the Archbishop of Canterbury and a crocodile.

Bill

In article ,
Martin wrote:
Rather the same as background atmospheres in sound. If you notice them
while simply watching the show, they are too loud.

They are almost always too loud,especially in science programmes, where
they aren't needed. :-)

May not be 'needed' in your opinion, but may be necessary to cover up
other things. Of course I'm not saying they are always chosen well.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/12/2013 15:35, Steve Thackery wrote:

When I walk along, the world most certainly does NOT wobble. When I
watch a TV picture where the cameraman is walking along, it most
certainly does.

When you walk along it most certainly *does* wobble. However your
brain has a handy facility for smoothing it out.
--
Phil Cook

Phil Cook wrote:

When you walk along it most certainly does wobble. However your brain
has a handy facility for smoothing it out.

FFS, that's exactly what I said!! Didn't you bother to read my post?

--
SteveT

Martin wrote:

It isn't exactly what you said.

"Our brains process the incoming data with
exceptional sophistication, both to control eye movements to compensate
for our body movements, and also to present a "cleaned up" image to our
consciousness."

--
SteveT

Martin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:05:52 -0600, "Steve Thackery" wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

When you walk along it most certainly does wobble. However your brain
has a handy facility for smoothing it out.

FFS, that's exactly what I said!! Didn't you bother to read my post?

It isn't exactly what you said.

?? Well Phil used different words, but Steve's post does quite clearly
say the same thing.

On 14/12/2013 22:53, Andy Furniss wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:05:52 -0600, "Steve Thackery" wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

When you walk along it most certainly does wobble. However your brain
has a handy facility for smoothing it out.

FFS, that's exactly what I said!! Didn't you bother to read my post?

It isn't exactly what you said.

?? Well Phil used different words, but Steve's post does quite clearly
say the same thing.

Yes, I'm sorry. I was skimming and lighted on Steve's second
paragraph. Which contradicts what he was saying in his first that the
world does wobble as seen by our eyes but not as perceived by our brains.
--
Phil Cook

Phil Cook wrote:

Yes, I'm sorry. I was skimming

Well I do hope you don't skim MY words of wisdom. If you do you might
miss something jolly important.

Bill

"Andy Furniss" wrote in message
o.uk...
Martin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:05:52 -0600, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Phil Cook wrote:

When you walk along it most certainly does wobble. However your brain
has a handy facility for smoothing it out.

FFS, that's exactly what I said!! Didn't you bother to read my post?

It isn't exactly what you said.

?? Well Phil used different words, but Steve's post does quite clearly say
the same thing.

I think it comes back to the idea of the 'Cartesian Theatre' - the
(erroneous) idea that the purpose of visual perception is to produce an
image (like on a screen) in your brain that a Numskull-like little man sits
in front of.

There was a discussion a year or two back on this newsgroup as to whether,
in any sense, your brain has to invert the visual image to compensate for
the inversion of the image on the retina.

Similarly, though clearly the brain has to compensate for the wobbling image
on the retina, it doesn't have to physically stabilise it as a digital
camera does.

--
Max Demian