|WikiProject Stagecraft||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Animation||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
No merge!!!! I'll flesh it out into a propper article.--Pypex 20:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia article 1 E-6 s about durations of time between 1 and 10 microseconds states that the duration of flashes for a professional strobe are about 1 microsecond. This article refers to strobe duration being several milliseconds. Either one of them is incorrect, or the other is refering to a different type of strobe. I'd do some research if I had time, but in the meantime I thought I'd point that out. --Tsuji 05:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Simple answer: strobe lights vary in flash duration. For tachometer applications (where the strobe is trying to make a rapidly-moving object "stand still"), a short flash is obviously very important; these strobes are optimized for a short flash (and rapid recycling) by using a small-valued capacitor for the energy storage and a microsecond flash sounds about right to me. For photographic applications where you're trying to capture a moving object without blur, short duration is still important, but it's obviously less important for, say, human subjects posing it is than for speeding bullets flying. But where light output must be maximized, relatively huge capacitor banks are used and it's likely that the strobe "fires" for a longer period of time. I don't have an actual number to quote or cite, though. Perhaps someone else does? A millisecond sounds long, but hundreds of microseconds may well be in the ballpark.
- If I get a chance, I'll measure my medium-sized strobe, but that, of course, is WP:OR ;-).
- Atlant 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
While I happen to agree that the lightbulb photo is striking, isn't the caption calling it such not NPOV?
Also, does the strobe animation pose a seizure risk? Should we change the timing?
- I suspect the image caption is a pun. I don't know (without looking at the history) whether I'm responsible for it or not, but if I didn't do it, I would have ;-) .
- Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that the animated GIF is flashing much too slowly to induce an epileptic seizure; it also occupies a very small portion of the reader's visual field and the aggregate intensity change is small. But I'm no expert...
- Atlant 00:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I looked (at the history). I did it. It's a pun, not PoV.
- Atlant 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a line inserted by an IP user that said: "It is commonly credited to Edward Strobe (1931 - 1982)." I can't find any evidence anywhere that this is the case, and it seems to contradict the stuff later about the history. If anyone can find any evidence that it's correct, feel free to put it back with a citation. Bryson430 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's just typical juvenile vandalism.
- Atlant 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought so, but I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt!Bryson430 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like said abouve just vandalism. there is a museum dedicated to Edgerton in Aurora Nebraska (his birthplace and a town 20 mins. from my town) so i know it was Edgerton and not Strobe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Strobing animated image
The Image:Strobe.gif is currently a part of the debate at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Avoid movement in pages.
- Remove the image altogether.
- Create a single frame static image, that links to the animated version, along with a warning caption.
- Alter the image so that it is safe for viewing by anyone, by making it flash less than 3 times per second, and stops looping after about 30 seconds.
I'm not sure about any of that, confirmation and comments (here and/or villagepump) appreciated. --Quiddity 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed, it, twice, only to be reverted (I did mistakenly cite "WP:VPP" instead of "WP:VPR"). I'd prefer option 2 Andy Mabbett 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so late getting back. What I did to the picture was to shrink its thumbnail, thus hoping to diminish its effects. Anyone who wants to see the full size version can click on it. I also moved the thumbnail lower on the screen, which for some viewers will put it out of sight until one scrolls down. This little animation is a splendid, simple illustration of the original purpose of the stroboscope, which is to allow looking at rapidly rotating objects. The objections, far as I see, boil down to three: 1) Epilepsy 2) Annoyance 3) Calling attention to the illicit use of someone else's computer.
- Objection number 1, I think is taken care of by the low frequency. After all, if the picture were to cycle at 10 Hz or higher, or to sit still, then it would fail in its illustrative purpose. Number 2, I hope was fixed so far as practical by the smaller thumbnail. Number 3, yes this is true, but y'know.... Jim.henderson 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The WCAG guideline is "no movement"; not slow/small movement. It's still "above the fold" on my screen. Thanks for your efforts, but I still object to its inclusion. Andy Mabbett 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the cited guideline allows for the following:
- Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3
- 2.3.2 Web units do not contain any components that flash more than three times in any 1-second period. [How to meet 2.3.2]
And our strobe clearly meets that criterion on correctly-functioning browsers.
Atlant 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Andy Mabbett appears to be ignoring any direct arguments. Until he directly answers my questions/objections at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Avoid movement in pages] (Beginning: "But the 1.0 guidelines were..."), then I believe he is just personally displeased with animated images and/or trying to exert power here (wikilawyering). --Quiddity 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to be referring to the discredited and superseded WCAG 2.0 draft. I'm referring to the current WCAG 1.0 (as I believe I have made clear on the page I cited, above). Andy Mabbett 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just came to read this page and decided to comment. The image is very irritating, I found it difficult to focus on the text with it going off constantly, so much so that I clicked onto this page to complain before reading the paragraoh next to it. It really needs to go.
Hi, I have sensory processing issues, and use gif-blockers, so I haven't seen the image. But I can be blinded by strobe lights at less than 1 Hz - for example by the strobe effect from turn signals - and disoriented by flourescent lights at 120 Hz. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Replaced by LEDs?
FTA: "They are still widely used in law enforcement and other emergency vehicles, though they are slowly being replaced by LED technology in this application"
I disagree. There is such a thing as an LED strobe light (basically a low-voltage strobe oscillator connected to LEDs), which are increasing in popularity for use wherever a colored strobe is desired. A white strobe can be accomplished simply by using white LEDs. I'd go so far as to say the new LED-based emergency vehicle lights are in fact comprised largely of LED strobes. Perhaps this sentence should be on Xenon flash lamp instead.188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What are the requirements for strobe lights, indicators on a commercial passenger jet airliner? What configuration is required by law? Are they for identification purpuses as well as visibility? What places on the plane are they required to be? i.e.: each wingtips, front and back top and bottom?
I have sensory processing disorder rather than epilepsy, but strobe lights, flourescent lights, turn signals, etc. are not "extremely rare" and they can be blinding/dazzling at high or low frequencies 1 hz. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)