These Past Months
 

I've been absent as of late, I apologize, I even received a notice from Tyler1 asking where I've been, so I'll update you.

As of late I've been studying on human perception, how the eye perceives motion, how the ear perceives sound, how the human brain processes this information. What I am now interested in discovering, and something I hope to understand is at what rate does the eye perceive light motion between time and space. As far as I've looked, I've found no investigation into this, but with a little physics I hope to find out.

I've also been broadening my understanding of time and space. The reason for this, I'm in the process of developing a language for cinema. The ultimate aim, bridge formalism and realism into a cohesive model.

Well, there you have it my friends! Good to be back for awhile!

Re: These Past Months
 

Glad to have you back. :)

Broadening your understanding of time and space, huh? Well, I've been rewatching lots of South Park, so it sounds like we've both been doing some really important stuff.

Re: These Past Months
 

Good to see you on this forum again! I've been rather busy myself these days, doing mathematics and algebra. Asians are good at math. As a half-Asain I'm trying to balance my studies between math and literature. :yup:

Re: These Past Months
 

I hope you're writing all your findings down for publishing

Definitely. You wouldnt want to forget any of them, especially if they're abstract stuff.

Understanding the rate at which the eye perceives light and motion within time and space has been difficult because it requires a lot of "fill in the blanks" between 1) the eye 2) the brain receiving this information 3) the time in which light (and motion) travels at a consistent rate. I'm hoping my investigations into human biology and physics don't fail me here. But if they do I'm going to have to rethink how human perception works. Ultimately though, the goal in this investigation is to bring light on a positively new way of filming.

The second task which I've taken on is just as, (or more), difficult. The cinema is a form without language, this creates problems. For example, if a composer composes a piece of work, he can witness before him if one of his notes is off-key. Within cinema, a problem arises in which those who create a cinematic piece cannot witness until the final product, (or hopefully editing room), in which something he creates is off-key. Diegetic montage especially runs into problems unless the filmmaker has a complete handle on his concept, but within context of the succession and rapidity of the diegetic, a conflict arises in which the viewer becomes at a loss of the diegetic, and the concepts they represent. This is why the ultimate goal becomes creating a language in which the filmmaker can create a form in which both realism, and formalism, can combine into a comprehensive and cohesive model. As it stands today, realism and formalism do not combine, they are either one or the other.

I'm confident I can manage both of these though. But this is not all my investigations. I'm hoping to do something within all this, and I will not stop until both the non-narrative, and the narrative, change forms.

I don't understand what the heck that means, and have no aspirations to find out whatsoever. However, it sounds like you seem to know what you're talking about. I've come to respect guys who can philosophize and really think about this sort of things. There used to be a time when I outright said they need to stop smoking so much drugs and get in touch with the real world, but with age, that time has come to pass.

I'll still never quite understand what's so interesting about understanding really abstract things, but it does take lots of patience and research. Myself, I'm grounded in realism and the tangible aspects of life. But there's respect for those who are more 'dreamy' and in touch with the abstract.

Let's put it this way, if we can discover a unification theory between realism and formalism, it is the cinematic equivalent of discovering the unification theory between our known universe. That of relativity and quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking once professed that this Everest concept would lead to humanities stagnation, if we get there where else could we go? I seem to be more optimistic though, mainly because of humanities resourcefulness. If we do in fact developed a unification theory for our cinematic realms, Karl Popper even illustrated through his philosophy of science, that nothing remains stagnant, humanity is constantly altering the ways in which we perceive certain fields of endeavor. If I am able to attain what I want to attain, someone of an even higher fixation will change my own modus operandi. That's the beauty of this universe, it is consistently changing, evolving, and it is my opinion it always will.

You clearly speak with great passion about these things, but it's hard for me to get into it simply because it's so intangible and abstract. I kind of vaguely understand where you are going, but I myself have no intention whatsoever of going there. Still, as I mentioned above, it merits respect, because grasping these intangible aspects of life are perhaps even harder than attaining more tangible goals like a promotion, or a great physique or a diploma.