I didn't think it needed explanation as it is quite obvious, except for you, that I did not say that the the eye has no shutter, camera functions were just used as an analogy.
If I had meant that the eye had a shutter I would have said "the eye has a shutter".
But talk all you want the eye still has the limitations as I've said before.

So, what's your point here? Are you saying that there's a difference between different light sources when it comes the the discussed effect?

In your experience yes, but you're either stationary or in a relatively slow moving vehicle. How can you with that experience deny what can happen in a completely different scenario?

I know that it is not practically doable, that's why I said that it was theoretically possible, if you could jump fast enough, obviously your body would be built to withstand those forces.

And Mythbusters, really? I see where you get your extensive knowledge of physics.

No, you want the effect that you see when firing from a stationary position to be valid in all situations, even those that you have no experience of and obviously do not understand.

But it's not a camera effect. Light can and will draw bent lines in your eye. What's so hard to grasp about that. You are obviously incapable of even imagining seeing the discussed effect in any situation, just because you haven't seen it in your irrelevant experience.

Hmmmm....




the velocity difference and length of burn time between a rounds tracer and a sparkler.



People need to keep in mind that a movie camera takes a "snapshot" every 1/25 of a second or so (depending on camera), so, if that camera is "shaking" (even minimally) it takes the "snapshot" at different aspects of the subject, hence the "zig-zagging" of guncam footage... both WWII and the more modern helicopter mounted GAU in the popular (in this thread) YouTube.

From an outside perspective, can anybody answer me this one question:

Why do people insist on arguing on the internet? Its like the special olympics...no matter who wins, your all still retarded.

I disagree, lets argue this out!

There is no way that the human retina could absorb enough light from a passing incandescent object (like a tracer) to perceive any kind of impression that it is bending relative to the vector of the eye (and said owner of the eye).

Maybe if you fired a tracer round past a fly (for example), it could pull in enough light to detect a change in direction relative of the tracer round to the fly's own position if it were to move away quickly. But then, because it takes in more visual information per unit of time, it would see a vastly improved impression of the tracer, with a correspondingly short trail (less flare effect). Therefore; even a creature (and it would have to be a creature - not a human pilot) with vastly improved eyesight could not see tracers as bending.

Light (and interpretation of light) just doesn't work that way.

As for sources: I can't give you any right now. But if it will settle this physics lunacy, I will be/will not be (un)happy to cobble together a (certainly) boring and (utterly) (un)necessary post. I will do it in my own time, because it is so mind numbingly dull. I will look forward to people disputing it as soon as I (don't) post it.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, this never ending argument about something that just cant be solved by any means, other than having better ingame coded tracers..:rolleyes:
Everyone agrees that what we see in real pictures, on real video or even on WW2 guncam is not reliable for all the technical blabla explanations that have been discussed in this thread....So how are we supposed to get a realistic graphic representation of what a real pilot would see in a real plane firing real tracers ?
It cant be done !
So we have two choices : ask a real WW2 fighter pilot to describe in detail what he saw 70 years ago when he fired his guns, or wait for some mods or Luthier to come up with a proposition that would satisfy most of us in terms of "what we feel is close to what we think that maybe would be realisticly accurate in RL":cool:
Until then, keep on arguing if you wish, but you are all wasting your energy unless you put your brains at finding a way to show us how a damn tracer SHOULD look ! :grin:

Salute !

Thats not what he is saying (or I am, or even that I fully agree with him). Also it has nothing to do with the "amount" of light (which would be taken as diffuse lighting/light), but its intensity (density/focus/dispersion etc).

Oh Dutch! you shouldn't have!

http://straightbanana.org/banana1.jpg

No, it does not.

Why do you assume that the pilot's head has to shake exactly the same way as the gun camera? :rolleyes:

The vibration starts with the firing guns, which are attached to the wings, which are attached to the fuselage. The wing roots shake less than the middle of the wings, where the guns and camera are; and the fuselage shakes much less than the wings; and the pilot's head has to shake less than the seat he sits on.





...