Re: Viewing the spokes

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Viewing the spokes
Date	2016-08-30 04:14 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<lpdf9d-a3c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	<nq1q63$bdd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <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>

Show all headers | View raw

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

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