[FFmpeg-user] The future of video

[MacFH - C E Macfarlane - News]

On 17/07/2024 00:02, Mark Filipak wrote:
>
>    To match human persistence of vision, the refresh rate of individual
> pels actually needs to be no greater than 10 or 12 refreshes per second.
> Only the dots that change need be refreshed and only to the extent that
> they change. Of course, if sub-dots are electrically dynamic instead of
> electrically static, then TVs need to have some sort of dynamic refresh
> that's opaque to the input. Bulk screen refresh at the input is
> undesirable because it would flash at 10 or 12 Hz.

I'm afraid all the above para is bollocks.  You're probably not going to
believe me, because I can no longer prove it, having now only dead links
to give, but there is no such thing as persistence of vision.  However,
there is very great persistence of the myth of persistence of vision,
because the video and moving arts industry just won't let it die!  IIRC,
it was shown to be a myth as long ago as the '70s, but still people from
the industry wheel it out whenever it seems convenient in support of
some specious argument or other.

The link, working in 2006 but now long since dead, even as long ago as
2012 when WayBack first archived it so all their 10s of archives of it
are of 'not found' or 404 pages, was:

http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth%20Revisited.htm

A search for "Myth Revisted" "Persistence Of Vision" finds nothing of
relevance except possibly ...

https://dokumen.pub/electronic-media-an-introduction-10nbsped-9780070169005-0070169004-9780071288682-0071288686-9780073378862-0073378860.html

... but the site had a down-for-maintenance message when I visited, how
long that may last obviously I don't know.

So, no, however much I'd like to, I can't prove anything I claim, but
it's a fact nonetheless that persistence of vision was shown to be a
myth many decades ago.