Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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

to:

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/fox-hun...



The 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


I 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.


Horses galloped differently in the middle ages.


If 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


Well, I didn't say it was good evidence - but it's a start.


Are you trying to compare a horse jumping to a horse galloping?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: