ROTS Darth Sidious Vs. ROTS Obi-Wan Kenobi

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
TJ, who are you talking to? Me? If so, the point is that 20 strikes per second is NOT faster than the human eye can perceive. Do your own research and find out for yourself. If you weren't addressing me, then my bad, but the point remains.

It IS faster than the eye can see. You yourself just said the human eye can follow 23 frames a second. A frame is a still image. Grievous was capable of 20 strikes per second. a strike (if illustrated) would be made up of more than a single frame. (a frame merely covers a single instant of the strike)

Try reading my post next time before telling me i'm wrong. It makes you look better.

And handsomer.

Originally posted by truejedi
It IS faster than the eye can see. You yourself just said the human eye can follow 23 frames a second. A frame is a still image. Grievous was capable of 20 strikes per second. a strike (if illustrated) would be made up of more than a single frame. (a frame merely covers a single instant of the strike)

Try reading my post next time before telling me i'm wrong. It makes you look better.

You're absolutely missing the point TJ as well as the concept here. Look, to make it simple, do this; Do you have a counter on your dvd player? If so the watch the fight between GG and OB1. Count the sum of GG's swings/rotations per second. Does it match up w/ the novel? Surprisingly, yes it does. Now watch the dvd @ full speed and tell me you can't see or perceive his strikes/swings/rotations/whatever. And the 24 fps (18 fps in some situations) applies to fluidity. We can perceive the motion of 100 fps, but not each individual frame. This confuses a lot of people.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Zampano, what I'm saying is that the novelization states 20 strikes per second. According to Nep, the narration dictates that GG attacks faster "than the human eye can see." It's a fact that most humans can perceive up to 23 frames per second. 23>20. Therefore, the narration that Nep refers to is fallible.

This is your statement that is incorrect. The important parts are bolded.

Strikes are not equal to frames, therefore you are incorrect.

Your hate has made you powerful....

our eye cannot follow the motion of the blade actually. our mind fills in the places where the blade SHOULD be based on its rotation. You cannot individually keep track of 20 strikes per second, and that is what the novel is referring to..

Originally posted by truejedi
This is your statement that is incorrect. The important parts are bolded.

Strikes are not equal to frames, therefore you are incorrect.

I thought that using this analogy might help, but it seems like it's making matters more confusing (hence, why I'm not a teacher). The point remains that General Grievous does not move faster than the eye can perceive, therefore the narration is wrong. Unless of course, visual acuity is different in the SW universe.

Originally posted by truejedi
our eye cannot follow the motion of the blade actually. our mind fills in the places where the blade SHOULD be based on its rotation. You cannot individually keep track of 20 strikes per second, and that is what the novel is referring to..

Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder, but you would notice it. 1/100th of a second? Very difficult. Think of your 100Hz TV sets. They are called flickerfree, because at flicker rates of 100 times per second you stop to notice the blackness of the TV screen, though the TV screen isn't shining all the time, but pulsating 100 times per second. You lose!!

Thanks for playing!

Actually your entire point is invalid because the 20 strikes per second thing is non-canon. Never happened.It directly contradicts the movie.

Thanks for playing though. excellent

THat has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about here, unfortunately for you. Grievous is using 20 strikes per second. You continue to talk about still images. His entire motion falls into that 1/20th of a second.

Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually your entire point is invalid because the 20 strikes per second thing is non-canon. Never happened.It directly contradicts the movie.

Thanks for playing though. excellent

Nep: Then you shouldn't have posted non-canon bulls**t. I wasn't arguing it's status as canon, I was making the point that the narration is fallible, which it is.

TJ: You're making yourself look bad. Did you do as I commanded you? I doubt it. That is why you fail.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Nep: Then you shouldn't have posted non-canon bulls**t. I wasn't arguing it's status as canon, I was making the point that the narration is fallible, which it is.

TJ: You're making yourself look bad. Did you do as I commanded you? I doubt it. That is why you fail.

address the post, or concede the argument, those are your options.

I have addressed it TJ, several times. Do as I commanded you or drop it.

Don't do it TJ, it's a trap!

Originally posted by truejedi

Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

Nep: Then you shouldn't have posted non-canon bulls**t. I wasn't arguing it's status as canon, I was making the point that the narration is fallible, which it is

I was doing you a favor Turdf*cker. And I said I didn't think it was canon as I posted it. AND the narration is only fallible when it directly contradicts the movie, which the quote about Grevious being Super-Sonic-speed doesn't.

So you still lose, sucker.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I was doing you a favor Turdf*cker. And I said I didn't think it was canon as I posted it. AND the narration is only fallible when it directly contradicts the movie, which the quote about Grevious being Super-Sonic-speed doesn't.

So you still lose, sucker.

I have never ****ed a turd (Gideons mother)😏. And whoever told you otherwise is lying.

Originally posted by truejedi
Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

Fair enough then. For the record, I'm NOT conceding anything. This is traveling too far along the lines of conjecture. Any further debating is akin to foolishness.

My point is... in a sabers only affair people are saying Sids would overwhelm Obi with his speed. Sorry but his fight with the General tells me otherwise. Sids might win a sabers fight, but I see no evidence that it would be because of Obi not being able ot keep up with Sids speed.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
My point is... in a sabers only affair people are saying Sids would overwhelm Obi with his speed. Sorry but his fight with the General tells me otherwise. Sids might win a sabers fight, but I see no evidence that it would be because of Obi not being able ot keep up with Sids speed.

It would seem that Sids moves at least as fast as GG. However, I'm lacking any hard evidence right now, so it's just an opinion, and a loose one at that. However, while GG is able to strike at least 20 timer per second, Sids speed is more than saber movement. We're talking footwork, dashing, leaping, flanking, etc... all at incredible bluresque (is that even a word?) speeds. So while GG may be able to match Sids in saber speed alone (then again, maybe he can't), Sids overall speed ability should far surpass that of the General.