3 ms·
Paintings aren't really good evidence. Note that until Muybridge did his first time-lapse photographs, pretty much every single painting of a horse in motion w
by Turing_Machine 9y ago
Paintings aren't really good evidence.
Note that until Muybridge did his first time-lapse photographs, pretty much every single painting of a horse in motion was grossly inaccurate.
Compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Gardner_at_a_Gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Gardner_at_a_Gallop
to:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/fox-hunting--full-cry-charles-bentley.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/fox-hun...
- specializeded 9y agoThe purpose of the shoot was to determine whether a galloping horse ever lifts all four feet completely off the ground during the gait; at this speed, the human eye cannot break down the action. That’s ridiculously interesting, but is it really comparable to a walking speed human? Sounds more like an issue with the human eye than older paintings in general
- marcosdumay 9y agoI do think horses move their legs on a higher frequency than humans when running. But I am still not convinced they are too fast for seeing.
- Angostura 9y agoHorses galloped differently in the middle ages.
- Retric 9y agoIf you look at the middle right image and compare it to the painting it's not all that wrong. Note: horse on right it jumping, not simply running. @ 20 seconds: https://youtu.be/oLvAxzVeyLs https://youtu.be/oLvAxzVeyLs
- hungerstrike 9y agoWell, I didn't say it was good evidence - but it's a start.
- chrismcb 9y agoAre you trying to compare a horse jumping to a horse galloping?