I was confused by the point of this example. Why is the anti-aliasing in the right picture here a good thing. It seems that the point in time capture didn't have any aliasing since the image was clearly captured. Maybe I am missing the point.
szzheng
I this aliasing here means that the picture on left looks equivalent to a motionless fan and is therefore a "bad" thing.
CynthiaJia
I agree with szzheng; remember when Kayvon brought up the example of a fan with a period of say 1/30 of a second, and if we sampled it just less than every 1/30 of a second, it would seem like the fan is moving slowly backwards? Then we would have an issue with aliasing where we are seeing an inaccurate representation of the actual movement, which I think would definitely be "bad" if you were trying to capture the original phenomenon.
Gyro
I was confused by this example too. I thought the left one is good.
I was confused by the point of this example. Why is the anti-aliasing in the right picture here a good thing. It seems that the point in time capture didn't have any aliasing since the image was clearly captured. Maybe I am missing the point.
I this aliasing here means that the picture on left looks equivalent to a motionless fan and is therefore a "bad" thing.
I agree with szzheng; remember when Kayvon brought up the example of a fan with a period of say 1/30 of a second, and if we sampled it just less than every 1/30 of a second, it would seem like the fan is moving slowly backwards? Then we would have an issue with aliasing where we are seeing an inaccurate representation of the actual movement, which I think would definitely be "bad" if you were trying to capture the original phenomenon.
I was confused by this example too. I thought the left one is good.