Talk:Flip book

Comments

I don´t know who you are Postdlf, but you are deciding that Flippies.com is more usefull than proflix.de, in my opinion both are flipbook manufacturers, and have the right to appear here. It is your opinion that Flippies is more usefull, let other people decide on their own what they think about it. And why did you delete my comment in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.102.1 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the commercial link to "FlipClips" continually gets reverted by postdiff, but I'm unclear why. Without advocating that site in particular, it's clear that there are other external commercial sites linked to in this entry, but no clear reasoning for preferring one or more over others, despite Wikipedia's guidelines regarding commercial links. For my part, it's reasonable to think that an encyclopedia for the masses would benefit from a link to a commercial site that caters to individual users more than a link to a commercial site that caters to large businesses. To wit: [FlipClips http://www.flipclips.com] makes individual FlipBooks, while [Flippies http://www.flippies.com] makes them in batches of thousands.

It isn't a matter of which business should we frequent, but which website provides more useful content. The Flippies site directly presents several videos that actually demonstrate their commercial flipbooks in action. The FlipClips site does not, and so only functions as an advertisement for their service. Postdlf 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

‎Bobbyshiwo, you could add a lot more information about flipbooks themselves to your site, so it passes the threshold and be more likely to gain acceptance as an external link in the article. Information which your site can host, such as copyright material, will always be something that wikipedia cannot host, and cannot compete with. Such material would give your site a permanent foot in the door. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The myth of persistence of vision

Persistence of vision - "The myth of persistence of vision refers to the mistaken belief that human perception of motion (brain centered) is the result of persistence of vision (eye centered). The myth was debunked in 1912 by Wertheimer[1] but persists in many citations in modern texts.[citation needed] Motion perception has been shown to be the result of the Beta Phenomenon."

Ok, so should this article be changed to reflect that? --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence before 1868?

There have been some disproved claims about earlier "flip books" (or similar forms of animation on pages or cards). There are some claims that I have not been able to check:

1: In 1760 the Berlin-based artist Philippe Jacob Lautenburger purportedly drew a figure in different positions on the odd pages of a notebook, effectively creating a prototype flip book. The most reliable source seems to be a book on the magic lantern(?) in Spanish. The year 1760 happens to fit the "250th anniversary" of the flip book as mentioned on the 2010 Israeli stamp booklet. Unfortunately no sources are mentioned, nor the location of this notebook.

2: In 1860 the "frenchman Pierre-Hubert Desvignes" purportedly invented (and/or patented) the "folioscope" (as the french call it), according to the french wikipedia article and several french sources. There turns out to be a naturalised english architect Peter Hubert Desvignes (or possibly his son), who on 27 February 1860 received British patent no. 537 for 28 monocular and stereoscopic variations of cylindrical stroboscopic devices These are probably all similar to the later zoetrope, but possibly include a type of mutoscope (or kinora, sometimes called a folioscope) which is basically a cylindrical flip book. The variations may include a type of flip book, but I have not been able to check the patent.

Does someone have more information on either of those? Joortje1 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References