Bill Nichol's co-wrote a series of articles (one in Cinema Journal, as I recall) on the issue some years back; what you want to look at is the ANSWERING article in the same journal (author's name escapes me) who took the Nichol's argument to pieces, and gives as good a summary of the current knowledge of the matter as can now be found. And yes, the phemenoma you mention are related. Evan William Cameron Telephone: 416-736-5149 York University - CFT 216 (Film) Fax: 416-736-5710 4700 Keele Street E-mail: [log in to unmask] North York, Ontario Canada M3J 1P3 On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Meryem Constance Ersoz wrote: > I was giving a presentation on early film to an audience of non-academics > last Friday and was explaining a bit about its pre-history and the > persistence of vision when an incredibly astute first-grader--in an > audience otherwise consisting entirely of adults--asked me if it could be > used to explain why wheels which are going forward sometimes appear to be > going backward or in reverse of the direction they ought to be spinning > when they are filmed. Yow. (After my talk, the series organizer mentioned > to me that this shrewd little guy causes his first-grade teacher a great > deal of angst and suffering.) > > So I'm kicking the question back to the film list. Can anyone answer this > for me? Why do wheels, when filmed, sometimes look as if they are > spinning in a direction which appears to be the opposite of the direction > which logic tells us they actually must be spinning? Does persistence of > vision have anything to do with it? > > Also, David Cook's book mentions something called the phi phenomenon > which combines with persistence of vision to produce the effect of > continuous motion in film. His explanation of what the phi phenomenon is, > is not very satisfying, but none of my other film textbooks (Monaco, > Bordwell and Thompson, Abel, Gollin) seem to elaborate the phi phenomenon > much more than Cook, if indeed they mention it at all. I'm not quite sure > if I can distinguish a difference between persistence of vision and the > phi phenomenon, given the way he explains it. > > Does the phi phenomenon have something to do with this wheel thing? Is > there a good journal article or something out there in language which I > can grasp? Awhile back, I read some stuff by perception psychologists, > hoping to find more about these film effects, but it was more mystifying > than helpful. I remember reading something in a book edited by de > Lauretis--THE CINEMATIC APPARATUS?--but, as I recall, the conclusion was > something along the lines of "current models of the persistence of vision > are unsatisfying, and we need to re-examine them." But I don't > remember--or perhaps did not grasp--the updated model. > > Does anyone have a good sound bite about this which they are willing to > share? Or at least can someone explain that wheel thing in case I bump > into any more armed and dangerous, precocious first graders? > > Thanks-- > > Meryem Ersoz > University of Oregon > > ---- > To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L > in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]