Talk:Persistence of vision

message: How have psychologists and physiologists rejected its significance? Do you mean that they have shown the phenomenon doesn't exist? Don't we in any case need an explanation for why we perceive things the way we do? I'm confused. Vivacissamamente 04:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: A fast bliking LED will produce a snow flake, plaid or Persian rug like pattern in the eye, especially with the eye closed and the light passing through the eyelid. Which theory dose this support? Is this the scan pattern of the eye? Is the pattern the same in eveyone or not? It is said that some people have trouble reading due to the letters blurring and changing color as they are scanned.
* I don't think this has anything to do with persistence, but I may be wrong. I had an impulse to remove that section from the article, but I'll leve that to others... --Janke | Talk 08:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the LED section. We need a reference that proves it belongs here. --Janke | Talk 11:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blinking LED

message: How should http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth%20Revisited.htm affect the article? Should "Persistence of vision" be categorized as pseudoscience? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persistence_of_vision&action=edit
Editing Talk:Persistence of vision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[User:Hackwrench|Hackwrench]] 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... As the wiki article says, there is a division among scientists and film scholars. I have inserted a note about it being considered a "myth". --Janke | Talk 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistence of Vision as a myth. 

message: Well, it's not, but this: "the eye is not a camera: there is no "frame rate" or "scan rate" in the eye: instead, the eye/brain system has a combination of motion detectors, detail detectors and pattern detectors, the outputs of all of which are combined to create the visual experience." does not really work well. For one, it being a combination of such detectors does not necessarily mean it is not discrete. Something else should be used as justification for the non-discrete nature of the eye's processing than that. mike4ty4 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye is not a camera 

message: I believe there should be one article about whatever makes we see motion in sequences of images, and one article about the afterimage effect, with an disambibuation page for "persistence of vision" summing up the differences. --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMO this should become 2 separated articles 

message: The explanation for the lilac chaser is totally wrong. No dot is moving, just switched on/off. The green dot, not the absence of a dot (gray) is an illusion. Stop the animation (take a screen snapshot) and you'll see. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilac chaser 

message: I am doing some reasearch for my master degree in visual arts and my main field is moving images. I am writing an article for a neuroscience subject and I have to confess that this wikipedia article was the worst about the theme I found on the web. It says that "A more plausible theory to explain motion perception (at least on a descriptive level) are two distinct perceptual illusions: phi phenomenon and beta movement", but right after this it says "Persistence of vision is still the accepted term for this phenomenon in the realm of cinema history and theory"? How confuse that can be? Of course the article about the myth have some gaps, but seems that it was just ignored. The way persistence of vision is described here take for granted every consideration made by the authors on how pesistence of vision has nothing to do with aparent movement. We´re not at all just passive viewers.fabs (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is nothing but confuse! 

message: If there is another article on wikipedia that explains how the different pyscological and optical tricks combine to create all the effects covered under the umbrella of "Pesistance of Vision", then this article should point to it. 
Otherwise, this article should focus on those things rather than debunking some victorian oversimplification that should not be dignified with the term "theory" (seriously IS it a theory? Can you give me an example of a reputable source talking about the mechanism, or is it just a strawman)
This whole article needs a complete re-write, breaking down the optics and neuro-psychology of vision into proper sections, rather than just repeating "the eye does not retain images" over and over and over...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed - What Is PoV is Not 

message: C'mon, folks, as the result of a well-intentioned crusade against a misconception, this article has become a serious educational hazard to the unwary passing reader.
Does persistence of vision explain why movies seem to move? No, despite what they taught me in fourth grade, it is now evident that it does not, although in the case of intermittent-display systems (traditional film projection, CRT video displays) it does provide some assistance to the illusion by suppressing the perception of flicker.
Does persistence of vision exist? Cover your eyes with your hands, face something brightly lit, uncover your eyes as briefly as possible, then observe how the "snapshot" persists strongly for a small fraction of a second before rapidly fading away. Yes, Virginia, persistence of vision DOES exist.
It is an absurdity for any part of this article to question or deny the very existence of persistence of vision, and mind-boggling for it to declare in its lede, as it now does, "The causes of Persistence of Vision is a combination of the phi phenomenon, beta movement, and Flicker fusion..." (bad grammar and capitalizations sic) and, later, that "the theory of persistence of vision is the belief that human perception of motion (brain centered) is the result of persistence of vision (eye centered)", etc., etc. Is this wretched verbiage the work of juvenile animation geeks with conceptual tunnel vision? Won't someone who can discern one topic from another kindly sweep this article clean of such atrocities? 66.81.221.218 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babies and bath water 

message: In article Beta movement it reads "This optical illusion is caused by the fact that the human optic nerve responds to changes in light at about 10 cycles per second".
How is it different from "narrowly defined" "persistence of vision (eye centered)"? --fireattack (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this disproved by "phi phenomenon and beta movement" if [[beta movement]] by its description is literally caused by persistence of vision?