[LINK] Aussie TV network guilty of subliminal ads

Ash Nallawalla nospam at crm911.com
Wed Oct 15 20:22:10 EST 2008

> From: Stilgherrian

> On 15/10/2008, at 9:55 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> > But the practice is objectionable on the grounds of
> > surreptitiousness, whether or not it actually does any psychological
> > harm.
> Why is "surreptitiousness", in and of itself, a problem?

Someone has decided that a 2 frame exposure is surreptitious, whereas 3
frames isn't. Surreptitiousness is too broad a word because it is not
confined to a hidden agenda.

Richard may have a technical comment on whether the fps rate makes any
difference -- the Wikipedia cited reference to J. Michael Straczynski sounds
American - " RE: the FCC...what we did in the commercial was totally legit.
We researched and found that the FCC considers a subliminal to be 2 frames
per second (out of the standard 24). So we made the blip 4 frames total." 

In our PAL TV 25 fps world, is two frames just as bad as in the US? In the
movies, two frames are shown twice, so does that make it four frames?

Is this writer correct: http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/fps.html ?

> Is "having everything signposted and explained to you up front" a
> basic right? If so, God should be arrested for such obscurity! ;)

And ghosts. 

More information about the Link mailing list