|
Post by ron on Sept 10, 2005 18:49:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Stevens1 on Sept 11, 2005 13:16:26 GMT
I seriously doubt that they lasted several frames -- that would get you a blur of motion. I think what you are noticing is a few cases where the snap started on one frame and ended on the next. When I take screen shot off of films, I have to set the camera to 1/30th of a second in order not to get frame blur, but I ocassionally get the same effect you are talking about...
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 11, 2005 14:27:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Clive Shaw on Sept 11, 2005 15:27:27 GMT
and maybe even separate the two. Quite possible I would think, one image would be on one set of lines and the other on the alternate. The resolution of these photos seems good enough to distinguish the line structure, so I would guess it would not be impossible to seperate the pictures. Albeit two pictures with a very low vertical resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Bash Hardcastle on Sept 16, 2005 12:56:37 GMT
That is the craziest bloody idea I have ever heard, and I've read a lot of Scientology books. It was written tongue-in-cheek, actually. Have you marked me down as a Who anorak or adolescent dreamer? Unless of course your comment is humorous rather than malicious. A bit difficult to tell..... No malice intended. Forgot the smilie there. Sorry bout that, Bash
|
|
Brian D not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Brian D not logged in on Sept 17, 2005 17:52:38 GMT
Apology accepted!
|
|
|
Post by williamM on Sept 23, 2005 16:20:42 GMT
opticencephalograph
|
|