The splicing makes no sense

So we're told that Tyler Durden splices ONE frame (remember that movie reels use (or used) 72 frames per second, if I remember it right - it was some kind of technical reason, and I might be wrong, but anyway) of 'pornography' (since when is photo of a flaccid genital 'pornography'?)

-- After some research --

Ok, I finally found it, I can't believe I got it right..

"Standard frame rate was established in the early years for each medium. Cinema determined that films should be captured at 24 fps, and then displayed by double and triple shutter projectors at 48 fps or 72 fps."

So in a triple-shutter projector, the reel speed is 72 fps. You're still seeing only 24 fps, because in those, each frame is shown three times (I guess for smoothness or something, so it won't be so jittery or whatnot).

Now, he distinctly mentions "a single frame", which means that the audience will see this one frame of a flaccid genitalia for 1/72th of a second. Divide one second into 72 pieces, take only ONE of those pieces, and there you go - it's an IMPOSSIBLY fast speed for regular audiences to notice anything. Even if it's full white or full black frame, only some super trained jet fighter would be able to even detect it, let alone recognize it as anything.

Also, what's the point of doing it if 'they don't know they saw it', as the movie explains. Why would seeing a human body part make ANYONE cry, no matter what the age? It's just a shape, it won't make you cry even if you're a real crybaby, will it? If so, what's the reason? Children aren't adults, they don't know yet what they're supposed to be able to see and what not, and they're more curious than so easily traumatized.

It's not like it's violence or mutilated face or something, it's just a shape that they might not even be able to recognize (if not seen before), so it shouldn't cause any reaction, or if they HAVE seen it before (like in family sauna or something), it should be a familiar shape and again, not cause any trauma. The crying makes no sense whatsoever.

But there's more!

A few things ESPECIALLY bother me. First of all, the 'flash' was WAY too slow (of course you can't show 1/72 in a 24 fps movie that's probably played at 30 fps with some kind of frame interpolation, but still) - it was WAY longer than one frame would have been.

Secondly, why is _THAT_ photo (that we even see later in the movie around the beginning of the end credits) seen as a _ENORMOUSLY_BRIGHT_WHITE_FLASH_ in the theater, much, MUCH brighter than the rest of the movie they're watching. Since when is a cartoon so dim that a dark-ish photo of a genitalia is going to flash the whole room like it's a really bright light?

Besides, we're not SHOWN a 'really dim' theater anyway, there's PLENTY of light (much brighter than, _ESPECIALLY_ 1/72 second worth of THAT photo would ever be able to generate, even if you had triple projectors!) in the theater, and this 1/72-second, ONE frame, will generate more light than a friggin' lightning bolt! WHAT gives?

Third thing that REALLY bothers me about that is the audio. Just because you splice ONE frame easily into a reel (probablya random spot, right? Or are you going to calculate the psychologically most 'traumatizing spot'?), doesn't mean the AUDIO will also change.

Audio comes from a different reel (at least I think), and THAT is probably around 24 fps or so.

Now, think about _how_ much work it would be to synchronize the audio THAT perfectly to the 'genitalia' splice. You would have to either be a master of craft and know exactly how to sync audio and visuals with two different reels running at two different speeds - obviously, if they're professionally done, all you have to do is start the reels simultaneously (and it's possibly automated), and then not have to worry about it (audio can keep playing while you change the reels, because you sync it perfectly anyway, so it won't need adjustments once it starts playing).

However, if you ALTER the audio, and add _THAT_ long 'ahh'-sound in there (it doesn't SEEM long, but remember that if it's 0.1 seconds out of sync, you will notice it as audience, and that 'ahh'-sound is longer), the rest of the movie will be out of sync with the audio, as the smallest increment you can add is 1/24 fps there.

So now your movie is at least two frames out of sync!

Tyler Durden splices ONE frame (1/72) into a family film, which is way too fast to see, knows that -somehow- it will traumatize a kid although the kid has no way of seeing it, and then painstakingly synchronizes the audio tape (plus records that 'ahh'-sound from somewhere, where exactly? It has to be the same format as the movie audio reel!) with the video reel, and yet makes sure the movie doesn't go out of sync.. and somehow magically makes it FLASH the whole movie theater although the photo is relatively dim.

_WHAT_ are we meant to believe?!