3 thoughts on “10%

  1. That was bad test. First of all the viewer was limited to what the camera showed and thus was prevented from seeing changes as the camera would not view that section of the room. Plus since it was acted we are used to scene changes as that is expected and we have gotten used to purposely not observing them in order to continue enjoying the play. This was done like a play and the audience is expected to ignore changes so not to disrupt the story

  2. That was bad test. First of all the viewer was limited to what the camera showed and thus was prevented from seeing changes as the camera would not view that section of the room. Plus since it was acted we are used to scene changes as that is expected and we have gotten used to purposely not observing them in order to continue enjoying the play. This was done like a play and the audience is expected to ignore changes so not to disrupt the story

  3. The point is excellent. Motorcycles are invisible to a lot of drivers because they’re looking for cars and trucks. People die that way.

    You can arrange a similar test any way you like and there will still be a very low arruracy rate among the unsuspecting observers. This is why eye-witness trestimony is often worthless. You often “know” what you saw, but you saw it wrong.

    And I don’t know how many whole conversations I’ve had with people in which the conclusions were understood completely differently among the participants at a later date, but it’s such a high number that it long ago became a pet peeve with me. That’s why we put the important things to writing.

Comments are closed.