Thanks Surly. I'll keep adding bit by bit.
Agreed about the author being somewhat long winded. He claims that film (not digital film but the exposure type film for movies) actually has burred frames. Am I correct to assume hat he is wrong? His assertion is that the blurring is actually necessary for us to see it smoother than the flip page child frame by frame type collection of still photos.
I saw some of those early stop image animations with puppet soldiers made in the 1940s (out there on u-tube someplace). They take a photo, then move all the puppets and animal figures a tiny bit and then take another picture and so on and so forth. It looks jerky no matter how small the movement.
Doesn't this mean that blur is needed or does it mean we just have to jack up the frame rate to 220/sec? I have been piloting an aircraft when a blur goes by of another aircraft I wasn't focused on. Maybe the blur is just a function of focusing more than speed but it's interesting to think about it.
If they ever figure out how to decode the signals to the brain from the eye, we will get a spectacular camera technology.
I do have a tendency to believe we "stream" rather than shoot a series of still photographs we translate into motion in our brains because:
1. I remember those strobe lights in the discos several decades ago where each flash shows you a picture of reality but NOBODY, even though they are dancing and jumping around, looks like they are moving!
2. When I look at a physical object versus what is on the screen of a computer or television, the resolution simply does not compare. Reality seems to be a lot more nuanced, pixelated or whatever than a frame by frame series of pictures.
3. Looking through a window is still far better in detail than looking into a digital screen at a movie of looking out a window. Something is still missing (besides 3D).
The only bearing all this has on bees is, well, uh... Give me time, I'll think of something.