video clip

[jvcc]

Animation in real-time..

[James]

That's more-or-less a modern version of a phenakistoscope, with the twist that by synchronizing with the frame rate of the camera the need to restrict the view is eliminated, meaning it doesn't have to be viewed through thin slits. Very cool, anyhow.

Speaking of synchronizing things with cameras, this is pretty weird.

[jvcc]

Speaking of synchronizing things with cameras, this is pretty weird.

That's cool looking, but oh god I feel ill now.

I should probably not be subscribed to this girl's YouTube channel with her songs about nerdy things. I am quite seriously pining over her. Sigh.

[badplantmommy]

Animation in real-time..

Mesmerizing!

[badplantmommy]

Speaking of synchronizing things with cameras, this is pretty weird.

That's cool looking, but oh god I feel ill now.

I should probably not be subscribed to this girl's YouTube channel with her songs about nerdy things. I am quite seriously pining over her. Sigh.

Awww, she's sweet! I bookmarked her "Comedians" song.

[quetzalcoatlus]

Animals Sing "12 Days of Christmas". Until recently I did not know that all of those dubbed "talking animals" videos I kept seeing were by the same guy.

[Zombie Protestor]

The "Epic Rap Battles of History" series is pretty funny and well-done. Here are some of my favorites, although there are many, many more (the second season just started):

Abraham Lincoln vs Chuck Norris

Billy Mays vs Ben Franklin

Einstein vs Stephen Hawking

Mr. T vs Mr. Rogers

[Zombie Protestor]

"Levitating" water

If you keep your focus on the + in the middle, these unaltered faces will appear grotesque.

[ntw3001]

"Levitating" water

If you keep your focus on the + in the middle, these unaltered faces will appear grotesque.

Both excellent. For the second one, my instant assumption was that my brain was emphasising the parts of a face it considers most important (since the main deformity I noticed was the appearance of massive eyes and mouths). Then the links in the description discussed it a little more (but not much). It seems there's more to it than that, but I still suspect that's a part of it.

That wasn't my first thought though. I'd assumed I was going to see something along the lines of the way one's own face begins to appear unrecognisable when stared at for long enough in the mirror, and felt a little cheated when the faces started to actually change. Then I realised that was the point.

I like these types of visual illusions, though. Like the effect I forget the name of where one's brain stops paying attention to things that aren't moving and they disappear from sight. At uni I used to lie in bed and stare at the ceiling until the fire alarm became invisible, which probably makes me sound less interesting than I am (although only marginally).

[Zombie Protestor]

I think it has something to do with your brain trying to put together a face and receiving what amounts to 4 or 6 faces at a time. That's my guess anyways.

[Binkatron5000]

I think it has something to do with your brain trying to put together a face and receiving what amounts to 4 or 6 faces at a time. That's my guess anyways.

I like this idea!

SO COOL! ME LIKE ILLUSION!

Our peripheral vision sucks at taking in details (although is better at detecting light than our fovea [center of attention]). Also of potential relevance is the fact that our brains process different shapes, colours, movements, sizes,and so forth, in different regions of the brain. Also, at different speeds (but still ridiculously fast). It takes in all these components separately, then usually compiles them together into a coherent unit that we then "see". Obviously this must happen REALLY QUICKLY, and it does, or else we'd just be seeing a weird jumble of lines and shapes and colours all the time.
So, I imagine the rapid shifting from face to face will emphasize the differences in the faces, and also since our peripheral vision generally sucks at picking out details, there could be a sort of temporal distortion where some details of the new face are seen or "refreshed" from the old face before others, resulting in what seems to be a really strange composite of the faces. Anyways that is just my idea, it could be totally wrong.

SUPER NEAT!!!!!

[EvilJekyll]

I think related would be change blindness?

[Binkatron5000]

I think related would be change blindness?

Excellent idea! Those are great videos! The second one is a particularly effective example of how our attention is limited.

[EvilJekyll]

I figure since everyone's eyes are the same size, and therefore little variation, the mind kind of combines the other features willynilly. Since you're focusing on a space between the faces and not actually focusing on the faces themselves.

[James]

A) That last video was originally a pay-attention-while-you're-driving thing Transport for London did that I saw several times among the adverts at the cinema. I guess I can sort of see why someone would change the text at the end to generalize it, but it still seems a little unnecessary.

B) The change blindness stuff is cool, and the full extent of it blows my mind (particularly as exhibited in the TfL video), but the basic fact of people's inattentiveness is not that surprising to me. What really does blow my mind every time is how visual scenes are assembled from components. I already knew this to be the case (I remember learning how there are different mechanisms for detecting different angles of edge, for example), but it's still surprising to me. I suppose it comes in part from having some sort of understanding of technology, and how man-made recording equipment is almost entirely passive, receiving patterns of light (or sound waves or whatever) onto some sort of sensitive material and preserving the image as a whole. That said, I think there's also a natural assumption that what we see is what's actually there, and pretty much all that's there, even if we know that not to be the case. The idea that we don't simply receive a complete image in its original continuous form directly from our eyes to our brain, but rather disassemble it into a hodgepodge of minuscule semantic components then reassemble it into a meaningful whole, filling in gaps where necessary, is understandably unsettling. I suppose it's this sort of thing that allows us to be inattentive without noticing we're doing so, so I guess it's all fascinating. It's particularly fascinating that we have specific mental apparatus for processing things like faces, however, and that we don't really see them in the same way that we see more neutral objects.

C) Another somewhat related thing that's also interesting to me is how we see in terms of objects and not just a sea of colours. I don't know whether objectively speaking it's a particularly impressive feat, but it seems to me that being able to instantly recognize what a thing is, or even that it is a coherent thing, from simple colour information that is often heavily polluted by environmental factors like reflections and lighting, is kind of incredible. Then again, they're making their way to teaching computers to do so, so perhaps it's not that much of a big deal.

RAMBLE OVER.

[EvilJekyll]

man-made recording equipment is almost entirely passive, receiving patterns of light (or sound waves or whatever) onto some sort of sensitive material and preserving the image as a whole.

I never really thought of it that way, and I guess it's largely impractical to do "active" recording. The only "active recording" imager I can think of is the Electron Microscope.

[James]

Disclaimer: I don't know whether I picked the best possible terms with "passive" and "active". The point is whether it's an open-floodgates kind of approach, or something more selective and interpretative. I don't know. NOT AN EXPERT.

[EvilJekyll]

I think you're somewhat right, as it's just allowing particles to be received and taking that information, and in a sense requires no energy to do so. (Electronic devices today primarily require energy to store the information from particles.) Where as I say the EMs are active since they use rays of electrons to create an image, and I suppose X-rays and such would be included as an active recorders then since they need power to record the images.

[James]

The distinction I was trying to draw would have X-rays on the "passive" side, though, so it probably is the wrong term. X-ray machines don't process the image at all; they just use X-rays as an alternative to light. The image is still passively received. I believe an electron microscope works not by detecting the subject directly, but by deducing its properties from physical side effects produced by the electrons it's firing at it. and is therefore a more reconstructive process.

[EvilJekyll]

X-ray machines don't process the image at all; they just use X-rays as an alternative to light. The image is still passively received.

I guess it's all about what your mentality of passive and active are. I think of it in the way of electronics, where passive requires no external power to induce a change, i.e. a volume potentiometer. Active would be something that requires power to induce change, i.e. an active EQ, or an amplifier.

I believe an electron microscope works not by detecting the subject directly, but by deducing its properties from physical side effects produced by the electrons it's firing at it. and is therefore a more reconstructive process.

I was getting a little confused with my categorization at this point, which is where I kind of decided the whole active/passive categories as above. It's kind of a grey area, where it's using the beam to directly hit the object, then recording how things bounce off of it in a sense... so more like using a flash with a camera in a pitch black room.

[jvcc]

Cuteness of the day: a little girl saying bye to people on an escalator.

[Zombie Protestor]

Posted this on my FB, but is worth posting here as well: Amazing speed painter

[quetzalcoatlus]

Cuteness of the day: a little girl saying bye to people on an escalator.

Oh hey, I have been to the mall where this took place a few times. Sadly I didn't have anyone waving goodbye to me on the escalator though. It sort of seemed like she got a bit dissuaded from her duties as self-appointed greeter after the first time someone didn't wave back (that girl who was too busy texting), but thankfully she got back in the spirit.

[James]

Don't Hug Me I'm Scared

Woah there friend, you might need to slow down.

[jvcc]

I found out about this "rapper" from a Cracked article. All of his videos are worth watching, but I like this one in particle because of the solid minute and a half before the "music" actually starts. There's just so much to be said about it, but perhaps it just needs to be seen to be truly understood.