Re: Viewing the spokes

Message-ID	<57C512C7.49E3@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	2016-08-29 21:59 -0700
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Viewing the spokes
References	(1 earlier) <5q9e9d-de8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <57c4dabd$0$31279$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> <583f9d-24b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <57c4f364$0$33773$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> <lpdf9d-a3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com>

Show all headers | View raw

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> > On 8/29/2016 9:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>> On 8/29/2016 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Viewing the spokes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A wheel with spokes rolls on the ground. A stationary camera takes a
> >>>>> picture of the wheel. Due to the nonzero exposure time of the camera,
> >>>>> the spokes will generally appear blurred. At what location(s) in the
> >>>>> picture does (do) the spoke(s) not appear
> >>>>> blurred?
> >>>>
> >>>> Depends on the speed of the wheel, the expossure time and the pixel size.
> >>>>
> >>>> For sufficiently short exposure time and sufficiently slow wheel, nothing
> >>>> will appear blurred.
> >>>>
> >>>> For a long enough exposure time and a faster wheel, everything will be
> >>>> blurred.
> >>>>
> >>>> In general, if nothing in the image moves more than a a few pixels during
> >>>> the exposure time, the image will not appear to be blurred to the naked
> >>>> eye, but would be visible under magnification.
> >>>>
> >>>> If nothing in the image moves more than about a half pixel during the
> >>>> exposure time, nothing will be blurred.
> >>>
> >>> Usual chimp blather pretending to be 'smart" about science by throwing a
> >>> bunch of jargon around (nobody ever said the images were digital,
> >>> chimpo)
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if the image is digital or on Kodachrome film.
> >>
> >> If the medium is film, you have to determine the pixel size from the
> >> grain size. For prints there is the grain size of the negative and
> >> then the grain size of the print paper and enlargement factor to concider.
> >>
> >> That one can do instantaneous calculations of position is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> The amount of blurring will be vastly different for an exposure time of
> >> 1/1000 of a second versus 10 seconds.
> >>
> >>
> >> <snip babble>
> >
> > Senile babble trying to change subject from fact that he missed the
> > entire point. Sure just babble on with irrelevant facts and maybe
> > someone will be snowed and not notice you totally buggered the question
> > and the head kook had to straighten you out.
> 
> If you mean your post where you said where the wheel touches the
> ground it is stationary, then your head is clearly up your ass.
> 
> It is stationary only instantaneously while the exposure time of any
> camera is NOT instantaneous.
> 
> If you posit an instantaneous exposure time, then nothing on the
> wheel is moving so there is never any blurring.
> 
> --
> Jim Pennino


the spokes atoms on the wheel is always moving...so there is always a blur...never say never.

Thread

Viewing the spokes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-29 12:08 -0500
  Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-29 18:00 +0000
    Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-29 21:00 -0400
      Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 01:14 +0000
        Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-29 22:45 -0400
          Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 04:14 +0000
            Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 21:59 -0700
              Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 05:16 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 23:00 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 18:29 -0700
  Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 18:29 -0700
  Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 18:46 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-30 19:40 -0400
      Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-30 22:07 -0700
        Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-30 23:48 -0700
          Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-31 09:54 -0700
            Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-02 10:00 -0700
              Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 13:23 -0700
              Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 11:30 -0700
                Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 13:18 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 14:57 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:01 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-04 12:46 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green Ergios <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-07 12:32 -0500
                Re: Red, Blue and Green noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:12 -0700
                Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-07 23:22 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:03 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:06 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 12:52 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-07 10:01 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:12 -0700
                Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:47 -0700
        Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:32 -0700
  Re: Viewing the spokes "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:39 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-04 20:36 -0700
  Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:08 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:32 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:51 -0400
      Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 00:10 +0000
        Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:43 -0400
          Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 00:57 +0000
            Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 21:07 -0400
              Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 01:33 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 20:59 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:41 +0000
      Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 19:43 -0700
        Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:29 -0400
          Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:43 +0000
          Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 13:28 -0700
          Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 17:14 -0700
            Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 21:52 -0400
              Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:11 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:49 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 00:50 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:52 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:11 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 16:58 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:40 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:56 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:47 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:07 +0000
              Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 14:26 -0700
                Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:04 -0700
                Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:54 -0700
              Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:47 -0700
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:24 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-15 05:12 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 15:45 -0700
                Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:36 -0400
                Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
                Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:15 -0700
    Re: Viewing the spokes Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-09-15 09:15 -0400
      Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 15:48 -0700
        Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 15:33 -0700

csiph-web