Talk:Stroboscopic effect

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Stroboscopic effect (lighting) was copied or moved into Stroboscopic effect with this edit on 19 July 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Move to "stroboscopic effect"?

I suggest that this article is moved to Stroboscopic effect, as the term "temporal aliasing" has a much wider use than this particular visual context. Any thoughts? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge Stroboscopic effect with Stroboscope which contains most of the same information, and add to the subtitle 'Other effects'? --Profero (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for any particular action and a stale proposal (for almost 3 years). Klbrain (talk)

I propose that Wagon-wheel effect be merged into Stroboscopic effect. The two are referring to the same effect in different contexts and already have very similar text.128.211.168.1 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge: same phenomenon, just different name. The intro of "Wagon-wheel effect" article even shows that Stroboscopic effect is an alternate name. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, merge: same phenomenon (aliasing), with various causes (lighting, visual perception) and expressions (not moving, moving backwards, reversing direction). The articles currently refer to each other and have a section for each other, with divergent text – a coherent merged article would be better. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger proposal: same phenomenon, different name. I don't think this merger proposal is controversial at all. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge: I was thinking about proposing this same merger several weeks ago and put it off, only to forget about it until noticing this. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is not true that the two articles are the same. The article on the Wagon-wheel effect (WWE) contains a description of the effect that occurs under non-stroboscopic (i.e., continuous illumination, such as from the sun or a DC tungsten bulb). Although some have taken this to mean that the eye has a frame rate, this theory has been shown to be extremely unlikely, as discussed in the WWE article. Rather, that form of the WWE likely occurs because of adaptation of various Reichardt detectors tuned for the real temporal properties of the moving stimulus in favour of others that are suffering from temporal aliasing (TA). Stroboscopic effect (SE) is a form of temporal aliasing; the WWE is a phenomenon of two types, both involving temporal aliasing. In that sense, Temporal aliasing might be the better article title. There was indeed an article called TA, begun in 2004. That article existed when I founded the WWE article on 13 May 2005, and it seemed reasonable to create an article of the WWE. TA had its name and focus changed on 31 May 2009 to SE and a process of convergent evolution began. ‎If a merger were to occur (and I can see some merit in it), I suggest that the relevant contents of SE be merged into the article on Aliasing, and the remainder be merged into WWE. SE is shorter (5018 characters), has fewer edit (91), and fewer references (1) than WWE (14457 characters, 160 edits, 14 references).Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.