For me it’s a very ugly, but still, image.
I think the dot movement on the flightsim pic has something to do with the refresh rate of your monitor. LCDs I believe are usually (always) 60Hz, CRT monitors can have higher refresh rates. People used to set CRT monitors to higher refresh rates to relieve eye strain.
OK, back home and on my laptop the image from the flight sim doesn’t repeat the moving trick. When I change the screen resolution down I get what I assume are moire patterns, but no effect of motion.
However, the second picture keeps the effect no matter what the resolution. In fact, on this screen when I move closer or further from the screen it seems to amplify the effect, making it look like I’m viewing the object through a magnifying glass.
I understand many LCD screens don’t actually do full 32 bit colour, and fake it by switching between two colours… perhaps it has something to do with that?
19" flat monitor, no movement
Is your screen resolution “Interlaced” or “Non-Interlaced”?
With an interlaced resolution the electron beam paints half a frame (a field) and then goes back to paint the other half. “Persistence of Vision” by the eye fools the brain into interpreting one full image.
(Old movies seem in jerky motion because 16 frames a second doesn’t provide the persistence of vision that 24 frames a second does.)
So, my theory is that you have an interlaced resolution setting on your monitor and the electron beam painting of one field, then the other field, to complete the frame is too slow (or too different) for your eye’s persistence of vision and thus you perceive motion.
I think it has more to do with the pixels your computer is trying to display not perfectly syncing up with the actual pixel elements on the physical screen. I’m using an LCD with an analog (VGA) connection, and I saw the movement until I hit “auto-sync”, and then it got much crisper and sharper. If your monitor isn’t synced up exactly right and you make your desktop pattern a 1-pixel checkerboard, you’ll see a much more extreme version of this effect. Hit auto-sync and it goes right away. It’s a good way to make sure your signal is synced up nicely, because the auto-sync logic in modern monitors looks for pixel boundaries to help it figure things out, and a checkerboard makes it so every pixel boundary is very well-defined.
Mess around with your refresh rate. I had a similar effect a few days ago and changing my refresh rate got rid of it.
-Kris
Back in work, I checked the advanced graphic properties and my screen’s aspect ratio is maintained, if that is meaningful to anyone. But putting up the refresh rate and putting the screen DPI setting to “Normal” took away the effect on the first picture.
Old movies seem in jerky motion because 16 frames are being converted to 24 frames without interpolation, and 16 doesn’t divide into 24 evenly. Therefore, when played back at 24 frames per second, 8 frames have to be shown twice. I’m sure about that part, but I’m not sure about the other thing I’ve heard; a confounding factor to their jerkyness is that audiences laughed more when the film was sped up, because it was funny to watch Charlie Chaplin move with his awkward swagger sped up. So, in reality, there were even less than 16 frames per second in the production, and closer to 12 of the frames had to be shown twice.
Maybe it’s a tumor.
When I was telling Mum, as a kid, about an annoying floater in my eye (that is still there today), that was her glib reply to me :rolleyes:
So…
Is it a tumor?
-FrL-
15" LCD… No movement.
The original doesn’t move for me. Flat panel monitor.
The close-up does. I noticed that if I move my eyes around the circumference of the circle, the movement of the circle’s interior coordinates with my eye movement. So as Squink said, the motion in the close-up is some variety of optical illusion related to eye movement.
After 20 years of being alive since then, it must be benign at the very least 
Good point. You bring up an interesting question. I’ve only seen 16 fps films on 24 fps movies. What would it look like in the original?
…