posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:29 AM
Looking at this from a different point of view... literally. I would say that it more likely to be what the animals are seeing.
Bear with me on this.
When I was young... very young, like a few months, you know the time when you have learned to sit up and focus your eyes and learn about depth and
distance, about that sort of age. I remember being propped up in front of the TV and looking at the screen when it was on and flashing, but I could
only make out what I now know to be static, like when the TV is not tuned to a station properly.
After looking at this static for a while, I realised that I could occasionally see pictures, mostly of faces, but they would keep disappearing. I
believe that this was because I could recognise things on TV if the camera was static but found it hard to see things if the camera moved quickly. Of
course, a human brain quickly learns to compensate through experience and growth. Perhaps a dogs brain needs a second or two to process and decode the
The over use of "Camera shake" these days makes it difficult for me to watch some films and TV shows. It started to be used occasionally as a cheap
special effect to make the "Action" seem more exiting. Of course these day it looks like most movies and TV Programmes don't actually use a plot
like the old days, a good car chase with plenty of shaking and 4 or 5 frames a second of different scenes for 10 minutes at a time, or even for the
whole show, is all they need these days and a good sound-over of a rhythmic drumbeat and irritating music, especially over the top of 'spoken'
sections of shows is the norm today. But I digress.
The first thing that struck me when I looked at some of the clips that were linked, was that the scenes I saw were all filmed with a very steady, slow
moving and often slow motion cameras. so the brain, even of a dog, can more easily decipher the the picture information if given just a short time
longer to actually 'see' it and so keep the animal interested. instead we now get in and out of focus, graphic effect laden, shaken to death
garbage. No wonder that even the dogs don't want to watch it.
Take a lesson from the dogs... avoid overexposure to these over-fast frame rates and picture changes, the in-and-out of focus for no reason and madly
shaken camera effects (or should that be Affects?) and the over use of disorientating graphics that are flashed all over the screen. They may be
there to excite your brain and fool you into thinking someting is happening, but they just bore me, I prefer meaningful scripts, sound and action.
I haven't watched the 2001 film so I don't know about the "Camera shake" bits in the film, if there are any. And I while I acknowledge that sound
may play an important part, in this case I think the steady camera did it.