Seriously. Anticipation of that denouement is what keeps me coming back :D.
My method for easy switching is to use one hand to block the view of the upper body down to the crotch and my other hand to block my view of the feet. This shows just the legs doing a pendulum-like motion. Looking only at the legs, view one as the front and one as the back. Remove blocking hands and the rotation is applied to the whole figure.
One of the things that makes detailed analysis of the animation difficult is the frame rate - it’s running at 3.3 frames per second.
So here is a copy of the animation slowed down to one frame per second
And if anyone would like to scrutinise individual frames, here they are:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
I don’t follow. Why can’t a silhouette have a reflection? If you put a figure above a mirrored floor, and backlight the figure, you’ll get something just like what we have here. If anything, the fact that she’s a silhouette proves that that’s not a shadow, since a shadow on the floor would require the figure to be toplit.
It’s definitely cold in there.
Yeah, I don’t think the silhouette/reflection distinction makes a difference. I see it as a reflection personally. But how do you visually resolve the reflection of her feet when she’s spinning clockwise? I didn’t see it at first, but now that I do, I can’t figure out how the reflection makes any sense when she’s going clockwise. Personally, I think it’s a great optical illusion, but the reflection is a bit of a sloppy oversight, unless you can explain how the reflection of the near foot is visible when she’s going clockwise, but the reflection of the far foot is not (when she comes around in the spin).
I see your point.
Exactly the same way as you can resolve the image above it as rotating either way - the reflection, or whatever it’s supposed to be, is just a flipped and faded, in-synch version of the sihouette above - whatever is true for the silhouette can therefore be seen as true for the flipped version.
That must be why I keep hearing “you must kneecap Nancy Kerrigan, kneecap Nancy Kerrigan”
If there are still yet any doubters, here are both possible interpretations of frame 15.
The same can be done with any of the frames and depending on which interpretation you pick, she’s rotating a different way.
The reflection works in either case, except that we have to envisage the reflective surface being at a different angle either way.
Mangetout, can you do the animation in reverse order (and the same frame rate)?
That should help the nutjobs who can only see it spinning in one direction (such as myself).
Sure - here is the animation in reverse order. It’s still possible to make yourself see it rotating in either direction, except now the figure is spinning with the pony tail trailing a bit.
OK, now something weird is happening because I can (if I wish) look at the original animation and see the figure waving back and forth like a windscreen wiper - never completing a revolution.
See! That’s exactly my point. The ponytail moves correctly now. The original animation is reversed.
If you like - I never really saw it as a rotating person, because of the complete rigidity of pose - it’s an animation of a rotating model that just happens to represent a female human. It’s not rotating under its own volition, so there’s no natural forward or reverse.
See, in the reverse one, I now see the reflection looking correct for the clockwise rotation.
I believe you, but I can’t see what angle that would be for the foot in back not to reflect, when the foot in front does.
Can’t speak to the ponytail but for me this one is reversed; with either direction of spin she leads with the extended foot. Doesn’t look right. But thanks for doing it. I just love this animation, flaws and all.
You know, you’re right about that – her legs do look funny in that version. It looks unnatural. Her leg doesn’t “sweep out” along with her rotation, which is what happens with a figure skater.
In the end, I conclude that the (original) version is CW, based on my ellipse argument. While Chief Pedant’s shadow argument is correct also, it depends entirely on the shadow. However, since it is not even a model of a shadow (or a reflection) to begin with, and it is only an additional, unnecessary appendage, I think it can be ignored. The essence of the animated lady is complete without the shadow.
Therefore, I give more weight to the ellipse argument and less weight to the shadow argument, and conclude that the original rotation is CW, which was my first instinct anyway.
Does anyone agree with me?
I disagree with your analysis ragerdude, because in one spin orientation she is tiltled slightly toward us, and in the other slightly away, so that would explain the ellipse being higher in the front or vice versa.
Actually, on reflection (hah), I think it’s more to do with the way the figure appears to be leaning in either interpretation; the loss of reflection of the foot that’s further away from us is because the figure is tipped toward us.