[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


<snip>(GSP wrote:)
 My statement that the gaits are functional equivalents and cannot
> > be told apart in lateral silhouette. Compare plates 44 & 55 in
Muybridge 1957
> > and imagine that the figures are solid black, the trot and pace are the
> > in this view.

(Jonathan Woolf wrote:)
> If you're simpleminded enough to only look at still plates, then no,
> they can't be told apart.  If you use some common sense and look at real
> animals in motion, or even normal-speed films of animals in motion, you
> can tell them apart.  <snip>

I won't address the comment on "simpleminded"ness (personally, this is a
little juvenile).  What I will address is the use of still and animated
figures for determining modes of motion.  When animators for Jurassic Park
(I know, I know; we all dislike J.P., however...) were designing the motion
patterns for the animals in that movie they had to animate them one frame
at a time.  This method involved being able to look at a frame of film and
then determining what the next logical movement would be.  This suggests
that movement can be inferred from a still plate.  However, it is also
helpful to be able to see the animal in actual motion (one animator
actually said that he could find mistakes in his motion animation by
watching the animals, that he was animating, walk (run, trot, canter, etc.)
in reverse.) Now then, I'm not agreeing with any particular side on this
matter but suggesting that both methods are helpful in the assesment of
matters of motion.

-Just trying to help

Casey T.
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio