Theory of No Still Picture
I’ve come up with a new theory while watching Fletch tonight.
I believe there can be no such thing as a “still picture.” Why? Because there is no moment in time that is so small as to be still. Think about a camera that takes a photo in 1/4000th of a second. That’s definitely small enough of a fraction of time to appear to be “still” but is it actually so? Isn’t there still some bit of movement during that time? There has to be.
Basically what I’m saying is that I don’t think cameras see as quickly as our eyes do. Thus, if we stare at a picture hard enough we can actually see the movement that is in that was captured by that photo. It seems to be that only when you really grasp what this means that you can actually start to make that fraction of the tape play.
I use that word “tape” for a picture because in reality, a “picture” that was taken in 1/400th of a second (for example) actually contains 100 1/4000ths of a seconds that are blurred together (and each of those moments are also just a blur of moments.)
I realize the math may be wrong there, but the theory is correct. Damn you! Wait. Let’s not get into some sort of argument, I’m not even sure what you’re saying right now. I hope I’m not … fuck it… I’m done with this one, it’s getting too weird. Maybe you weren’t supposed to know this.
Comments
Leave a Reply
