Apr 21, 2014
8 notes

People are going to come to my blog, and all they’re going to see is long posts about hotdogs flying out of a Braking Bad character’s pants.

I just want you to all know that I was wielding the blade that destroyed me.

Apr 21, 2014
1 note
steppesidiomatic asked: Regarding your response about the GIF with the man and the hot dogs going in/out of his pants: Does this mean that one can will oneself to imagine the chicken wings in the background into changing direction, or are they too far apart from one another?

They are too far apart/too slow.  They are distinct individuals, whereas the ‘dogs are just a hot mess.

Apr 21, 2014
9,080 notes

joyfulldreams:

rionhunter:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 

To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.

Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.

Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.
That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.

Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.

The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.

This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.

For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.

Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved.

If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?

Yeah, a little trickier.

In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.

Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.

As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.

The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.

Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.

The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.

When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.

And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. 

In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)

So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);

The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. 
When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.

THIS IS ALL CORRECT except 1) “Persistence of Vision” as it was first coined was described as a phenomenon where images of what you see are imprinted onto your eyeballs for a split second and it causes-bleed over into the next image you see. Which is totally wrong and not actually what happens (we know now that the lag happens in your brain, not in the eye, plus, if it is imprinted into your eye, what is imprinted is pretty much always a NEGATIVE image, thus why when you stare at a bright red wall for a long time and you look away, everything looks green) but the original essay by Peter Mark Roget in the 1800’s was actually very important in spurring forward both animation and film in the years to come. 

SECONDLY—24 frames per second is actually the standard, not 25. I mean for films and animation the frame rate can be anywhere from 24-30 frames per second but more than 24 is usually used for live action. 

THIRDLY the way they talk about stretching and deforming images is a little misleading. Animators don’t ALWAYS do this as a result of just “needing to make it move from frame x to frame y”. It is something SOME animators do SOMETIMES—it’s a technique that is in our arsenal but we could also perfectly easily avoid having to use if we didn’t want to. It would simply require re-spacing different drawings. You could use this technique minimally or you could go all the way with it and do some pretty crazy-looking stuff. :P It’s really a matter of style. If you’re going for something that looks more subtle then you’ll probably want to avoid squash and stretch and/or deformation as much as possible. If you want your characters or objects to feel more RUBBERY…well, there you go. 

24.  Correct.  My bad.
Australia’s PAL starts at 25fps, and I got them confused.

And yeah, I wasn’t going to get into the nitty gritty of how smearing adjusts the style of animation, as I was just focusing on strobing/chopping, and how it’s the devil (to keep it simple for those that have little knowledge in this field)

Apr 21, 2014
9,080 notes

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 

To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.

Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.

Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.
That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.

Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.

The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.

This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.

For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.

Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved.

If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?

Yeah, a little trickier.

In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.

Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.

As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.

The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.

Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.

The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.

When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.

And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. 

In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)

So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);

The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. 
When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.

Apr 21, 2014
3 notes
Apr 21, 2014
22 notes

http://fate.com/

chelletheroc:

rionhunter:

huh.

Im… not sure how I fee about this…..

Apr 21, 2014
389,945 notes
adhoption:

river-b:

motherfuckinoedipus:

abnels:

memeguy-com:

You win this round cheese

actually that is a rectangle cheese

[oxford comma laughing in the distance]

[vocative comma wondering what oxford comma thinks it’s doing here]

I already reblogged this for the pun but I’m reblogging again for the sick punctuation banter

adhoption:

river-b:

motherfuckinoedipus:

abnels:

memeguy-com:

You win this round cheese

actually that is a rectangle cheese

[oxford comma laughing in the distance]

[vocative comma wondering what oxford comma thinks it’s doing here]

I already reblogged this for the pun but I’m reblogging again for the sick punctuation banter

(via crowleyscupcakes)

Apr 20, 2014
291,148 notes

moriahari:

HOLY SHIT

(Source: sizvideos, via rhinoapproved)

Apr 20, 2014
22 notes
Apr 20, 2014
261,432 notes
Apr 20, 2014
323,994 notes
bewbin:

i win 

bewbin:

i win 

(Source: bewbin, via cromulant)

Apr 20, 2014
136,853 notes

liliumgrey:

This is beautiful.

(Source: pleatedjeans, via starfleetrambo)

Apr 20, 2014
15 notes

I hope he casually hangs it in his kitchen, and sees if anyone says anything.

Apr 20, 2014
79,238 notes

homoora:

kagura-shingan:

tricoloredcake:

clavid:

image

lost it at the music

it doesn’t seem all that funny but when you get to the eND

I FUCKIBG G FOUDN IT 

(via rhinoapproved)

Apr 20, 2014
225,220 notes

888mph:

darthbabe:

 

Real men don’t give a shit about what “Real Men Do and Don’t”. Real Men will gladly have a tea party with their nieces, and don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks. 

this is the most adorable thing

the cutest

And real men do it right, with nail polish, sparkly tiaras and earrings, lipgloss, and feather boas. They don’t do it half-assed.

(Source: broriarty, via miikachu)

Navigate
About
My life is nonstop.
I am never bored. I am always creating, or putting off what I'm supposed to be doing. Subscribe via RSS.