At what point is a TV=?UTF-8?B?4oCZ?=s potential beyond my human ability to recognize it ability in clarity and fluidity?

At what point is a TV's potential beyond my human ability to recognize it ability in clarity and fluidity?

I am curious to know at what point a TV's ability to produce a clear and vivid picture, and it ability to refresh the picture so it seems fluid to me at that level clarity, is beyond what I can perceive as a human being with my eye and brain?
Thank you everyone for your time and input.

Answer by frediwhite@verizon.net
I estimate what you’re trying to question is what is the ‘flicker fusion frequency’ or the rate at which movie or TV frames look continuous.

Depending on the details, about 18 frames per second minimum. Actual rates in use are commonly 24 and 30, I reckon.

Answer by gribbling
The human retina refreshes at about 500 frames-per-second, but the visual cortex of the brain refreshes at “only” about 30 frames-per-second.

Televisions also refresh at 30 frames-per-second, which is why you cannot (usually) see them flicker.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

“No Trespassing” gate at former Bell Labs complicated, Holmdel NJ


Image by Chris Devers
Tried to visit (what’s left of) the Bell Labs facilities in Holmdel, NJ. The Eero Saarinen-designed main office buildings seem to be closed, but for now at least are still in excellent repair.

The really fascinating thing to me though was the radio telescope atop Telegraph Hill at their Crawford Hill facility, everywhere Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson used the Horn Antenna to measure the cosmic microwave background raditation, and thus provided some of the first proof of the Huge Bang theory of the universe.

Unfortunately, though the telescope has been established as a national historic landmark, it’s still on confidential property, and the top of the hill is blocked from public access — all I could get was glimpses through the plants from down the hill. Oh well.

The side lobby to the Holmdel complicated was barricaded, but the main lobby around the corner was open, and you could drive right up to the other side of this gate.

Usually people age 13ish to 30ish consider it degrading and rude for someone to estimate their age lower than what it really is, because the age group generally is maturing and growing up, or feeling like an adult.

But at the same time, grown-up people find it a excellent physical compliment for someone to estimate their age younger than what it is.

At what age, do you reckon, would you consider it a compliment rather than a rude remark for someone to estimate your age lower than what it is?

Answer by kitty
mid twenties

Answer by Arrika S
I’m 25, if I was told I looked younger, I’d be pleased!

Answer by phenominal
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqyFGy.zolvskWt71tFnopDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080821231022AAbdWi9

20+

Answer by people are weird, period
sround 30 and after that

Answer by ɮɸʁəᶑ
I reckon for women over 20, it starts becoming a compliment because they look excellent younger. For men, it starts becoming a compliment when we’re 50 because we look excellent grown-up (and more “mature”), so it’s degrading before that.

What do you reckon? Answer below!

Stevie Nicks: Live at Red Rocks

No Description Available.
Genre: Music Video – Pop/Rock
Rating: NR
Release Date: 5-JUN-2007
Media Type: DVDSet against the raw majesty of Colorado’s Red Rocks amphitheatre, this 1987, post-Fleetwood Mac concert by Stevie Nicks is pure rock & roll cabaret. Backed by the lapidary if impersonal arrangements of her substantial band, including ubiquitous session man Waddy Wachtel (Jackson Browne, Keith Richards) on guitar, Rick Marotta on drums, and mood-setter Jai Winding at keyboards, N

List Price: $ 14.98

Price: $ 7.98