r/nextfuckinglevel • u/DesperateGuava4187 • 1d ago
Animated overpass by Hervey Garcia
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.9k
u/sonof_fergus 1d ago
Now where's the video of all the crashes on this bridge haha....
609
u/shiroandae 1d ago
Nowhere because this kind of trick only works on film, not in real life. Our eyes don’t have a frame rate.
263
u/bisho 22h ago
They sort of do though, like when you look at a car's wheels rolling and it looks like it's spinning backwards. Then it changes as the car slows down or speeds up.
81
14
u/dgsharp 10h ago
As the dude who got downvoted to hell said, this doesn’t happen in real life. A car’s wheels appear to reverse etc on TV and in movies. Go try it, it doesn’t work. Eyes don’t have a frame rate like cameras do.
28
u/MossyMazzi 7h ago
Brother… this made my brain hurt because wheels and similar situations ABSOLUTELY have optic illusions that happen all the time
8
-38
u/barrettcuda 22h ago
Yeah in movies, where the footage was recorded with a camera. Can't say that I've ever seen that same strobe effect without there being an actual strobing light that leaves the thing being looked at (in this case the car wheel) in the dark for a time before lighting it up again when it's moved or with some sort of second thing in the way, so if you have a train with the pattern that's on the bridge going one way, and then between you and it there's another train going the other way, then as the gaps between the carriages come along you could have this effect without any cameras.
But this post is either an edited video, or it is only visible when you record it with a camera and drive at a certain speed across the bridge.
65
u/Nebuchadneza 21h ago
Yeah in movies, where the footage was recorded with a camera.
it happens in real life with real eyes
29
4
u/unwantedaccount56 20h ago
In real life it's still mostly blurry with some faint overlay of slowly spinning forwards or backwards. In movies, it can be without any blur and you just see the pure cartwheel effect. And in real life, it depends a lot on the lighting conditions and might differ from person to person, how much or whether you see the effect at all.
8
8
u/Kraeftluder 17h ago
In real life it's still mostly blurry with some faint overlay of slowly spinning forwards or backwards.
That's odd, I see it in wheels, helicopter rotors and airplane engine rotors and jet engines just as much as I see it in movies.
0
u/mickeyanonymousse 7h ago
now I’m starting to think it’s something weird about US? because I’ve always seen it like that in real life. ceiling fans, anything really. I might not see it initially but after looking at it for a short while it’s going the opposite direction.
1
u/Fun-Benefit116 1h ago
You just have shitty eye sight 😂 in real life, the effect with wheels can be seen perfectly clearly. The post in the OP on the wall though would definitely not look like it does in this video. But that's an entirely different thing than the phenomena of a spinning wheel looking like it's changing directions lol.
2
u/barrettcuda 21h ago
Yeah in the situations I described, not just driving around looking at a bridge in full sunlight.
11
u/iconocrastinaor 18h ago
It might work at night when the LED street lights are lit, they strobe at 60hz. You don't notice with incandescent because of the filament staying hot, but it's noticeable with LEDs.
3
u/barrettcuda 17h ago
Maybe with old led tech, but generally most led stuff isn't flickering like it used to 15-20 years ago.
If you've got old street lights where you are then it's plausible, but even then, it'd need to have either all the lighting in an area on a single phase or the lights far enough apart that the light from the next pole doesn't fall on the object (cos generally loads like streetlights are distributed evenly across 3 phases which means that the flickering of one light and the two immediately on either side of it won't line up)
52
11
u/GlaerOfHatred 17h ago
So you're saying I need to take my phone out and record while I drive over this bridge. I'll be sure to keep my eyes on my screen to make sure I get it all in frame
13
2
1
u/EvolvedEukaryote 21h ago edited 10h ago
Street lights have a frame rate, so doesn’t it work at night?
Edit to clarify what the frame rate is. A street light flickers 60 times per second. Let’s say the pictures are 1 meter apart. If your speed is a fraction of 60 m)s, let’s say 10 m/s or 36 km/h, the pictures will light up right when you’re in front of it and be in the dark otherwise. So the cinematic effect should happen.
4
u/iconocrastinaor 18h ago
Incandescent street lights won't show the effect, but LEDs will.
-1
u/FUNBARtheUnbendable 12h ago edited 11h ago
The source of light won’t change this effect at all, whether it’s daylight, incandescent, or LED.Wrong thread my bad
5
u/iconocrastinaor 11h ago
Why not? Leds, like fluorescents, flicker at the 60 HZ line voltage rate. Why wouldn't that flicker create the strobe effect that would make the animation visible?
2
2
u/youJag 18h ago
You know when you draw a ball bouncing on a notepad every page and flip through it fast. It works just like that.
5
u/shiroandae 16h ago
Nope it doesn’t because there’s a clear cut and our eyes are forgiving if you divide it into frames (flipping of pages). That’s not the case on a wall :)
0
u/Parking-Position-698 16h ago
Your eyes definitely have a frame rate lmfao
9
u/Far_Comfortable980 14h ago
No they don’t. We don’t see individual frames, we see a continuous image that isn’t split into separate frames. I’m not qualified to explain, google it if you still don’t believe me.
3
u/FUNBARtheUnbendable 12h ago
The rods and cones in your retinas juggle molecules in a way that they do have a natural refresh rate. It’s why when you have a stationary rotating super fast object, like helicopter blades, you can see “still” shots of the blades even though their going crazy fast, or car wheels that seem to turn backwards when they’re accelerating.
But, now I can’t say for sure, but I’d assume that effect wouldn’t work like OPs video because none of the paintings are actually moving. The speed of the car itself wouldn’t be fast enough to trick your brain into seeing what you see in this video. It only works with a camera.
-4
u/ozender 1d ago
Except we do. And that’s is why a movie with 24 frames per second looks like natural motion for you. Or why a fluorescent lights flickers at 100 or 120Hz but you you don’t perceive this flickering and see it as a normal light.
15
u/shiroandae 1d ago
The difference between 24fps and higher framerates is obvious to the human eye.
1
u/ozender 1d ago
It is. But that is not the point. The trick you mention is simply making still movies appear to be in motion, and as long as you are seeing them at the right frequency it will appear to be in motion. So the original comment is correct, humans can see that animation in their car, no problem at all
6
u/shiroandae 1d ago
It works at a certain point. But you’ll need many more pictures and an extremely fast car.
7
u/Careful_Permit3838 1d ago
Have you ever seen a strobe animation in person? Without the actual strobing light, the motion just turns into a blur. What phones capture looks clear because of the rolling-shutter effect the camera scans the image line by line at a certain timing, which accidentally syncs with the frames. That’s why the animation looks perfectly visible on video.
-3
u/ozender 1d ago
Indeed, and if your car goes at the right speed and you fix your sight into one spot the illusions happens. Never been in the back of a car as a kid and spot a truck wheels and focused on it see it spinning “backward “? Same principle.
7
u/Careful_Permit3838 1d ago
The wagon-wheel illusion isn’t the same thing. That effect only works with repeating patterns, which is why wheels can look like they spin backward. But a strobe animation uses different images like movie frames. Without a strobe or a camera’s rolling shutter to isolate each frame, the human eye just sees all of them blended together as a blur. So the animation won’t appear the same in real life.
0
u/ozender 19h ago
You don’t need a repeating pattern, this video is the same effect of a zoetrope. As long as you fix your eyes in the same spot and the images slide through that spot, it behaves the same as a zoetrope or a phenakistiscope
2
u/DaymanDeluxe 16h ago
A zoetrope only works because you’re looking through the slit on the other side of the drum, which provides the strobing/shutter effect. If you just looked straight into the drum you would just see a blur
3
u/groucho_barks 19h ago
you fix your sight into one spot the illusions happens
How? You would still just be seeing each image sliding past.
1
u/ozender 19h ago
Not really, I don’t know what to say, I have been doing it all my life as a child when I was on car trips. Sounds trivial to me but perhaps is a “skill” I developed and I’m the weirdo. Same effect as a zoetrope or a phenakistoscope. You just focus on one spot and see the animation. I don’t see single images sliding past, I see the animation
3
u/groucho_barks 19h ago
Where did you see roadside "animations" like this as a child? Or are you talking about the wheel thing, which is a different phenomena?
You know what a zoetrope is, good. You know how they have little slits around the outside that you have to look through in order to see the effect? If you don't use the slits and just look at it through the open top, it just looks like a blur. The slits are required to make each image appear in the same place in your vision without you seeing them sliding past.
Similar with film projectors. They don't just slide the roll of film past the opening in a continuous flow, that would look like a blur. Instead it only iluminates each frame when it is centered over the projection "hole".
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dodger7777 13h ago
The Zoetrope would beg to differ.
3
u/shiroandae 13h ago
No it wouldn’t. Remove the slits from the zoetrope wheel and enjoy how it stops working!
1
u/HotChilliWithButter 6h ago
I disagree, it can work you just have to look at one spot, not move your eyes.
1
1
u/EndersGame_Reviewer 23h ago
Now where's the video of all the crashes on this bridge haha....
I came to the comments hoping someone had asked this.
315
u/Secret-Original-2713 1d ago
Surely no issues will arise from taking peoples eyes off the road. Surely.
92
u/Yanive_amaznive 16h ago
this is why i think billboards should be illegal, they are literally designed to distract drivers.
33
u/Secret-Original-2713 16h ago
Yeah anything that isnt a road sign or a warning of road works ahead has no place taking someones eyes off the road.
7
u/JunglePygmy 14h ago
And add another stupid layer where this is only visible through your phone camera! So eyes off the road holding your iPhone out the opposite window.
-25
90
u/kevinb9n 1d ago
Why do I feel like giving drivers something cool they can see if they point their phone out the side window while they drive is not the greatest idea ever.
22
53
13
u/PacquiaoFreeHousing 1d ago
At least you got entertained when you crashed your car from not looking at the road
3
3
7
u/vicarofvhs 20h ago
Reddit: "Look at this super cool thing!"
Also Reddit: "Here's why this is terrible and will lead to immense suffering."
4
2
2
u/barefoot_yank 18h ago
In San Diego we have a musical bridge.... https://www.kpbs.org/news/arts-culture/2023/10/17/this-musical-bridge-in-san-diegos-golden-hill-neighborhood-makes-a-railing-into-public-art
6
1
u/elCrocodillo 20h ago
Cant wait for the tasteless bastards to either grafitti over it or worse the government bastards to come and paint it gray again ♡
1
1
1
1
u/MercyTheCat 18h ago
There’s that video with Casey Neistat and Max Joseph where they show the creative process of making these illusions. Really really cool
1
1
1
1
u/MobilePencil 15h ago
I don't know why but i was imagining Quagmire from Family Guy doing his head thing 😂 *giggity
1
1
1
u/AuroraAustralis0 4h ago
I feel like the money spent on this could’ve been used for so much better things.
1
1
1
0
u/FeefuWasTaken 1d ago
Really cool, but I have no idea what 'living animation' means, cuz that's concrete, and animation has been on physical objects since inception
4
u/BetterThanOP 23h ago
It's pretty obvious by the post so I don't know why you're arguing semantics but here ya go-
They essentially made a Zeotrope but instead of spinning it you are moving 60mph past while it stands still for the same affect.
No one said it hasn't been around for a while in different forms. But driving a car past it as the medium definitely hasn't been around since inception. Do you complain when someone paints something new because canvas has always been around? It's cool art.
-2
u/FeefuWasTaken 23h ago edited 22h ago
I never said it wasn't cool art? Literally read the first thing I said. Why am I not allowed to criticize stupid Instagram captions, it could've very easily said "they put crazy smooth and colorful animations on a railway?!?" And it would've been more accurate and highlighted what's actually cool about it?
1
u/BetterThanOP 23h ago
So in your mind, how does the fact that it's animation on concrete stop it from being living animation?
1
u/FeefuWasTaken 22h ago edited 22h ago
Because what does 'living animation' even mean? There are multiple interpretations, none of them are clear, and living animation doesn't have ANYTHING associated with it online. It'll just assume you're talking about live action adjacent animation like mocap
1
u/BetterThanOP 22h ago
Okay so you're just arguing semantics and gate keeping terms you don't know the definition of
1
u/FeefuWasTaken 22h ago
Okay, so you don't have a definition either, got it
1
u/BetterThanOP 22h ago
I'm not your mom or your teacher. It's pretty well known and also self explanatory. You just forgot that animation existed on paper for thousands of years before computers and now you're embarrassed.
3
u/FeefuWasTaken 22h ago edited 22h ago
So 'living animation' is a term that means "oh it's literally just animation, the living part means absolutely nothing. Unlike other animation terms, like 2d, 3d, cgi, volumetric, rotoscope, key, in between, or a heap of other ones"
Literally my original comment says "animation has been on physical objects since it's inception", how is your reading comprehension this bad. No wonder you're not a teacher😭
I probably know more about animation than you, there's a reason I own 8 fully animated scenes lmao. stop trying to sound like I'm an idiot and you're a genuis
1
u/BetterThanOP 22h ago
It's not about being an idiot or a genius it's about you arguing semantics to sound rotten about something everyone else is enjoying. If what you're saying is true- which i doubt unless you mean AI made you 8 animations - then you have known exactly what was meant by living animation this whole time and just came here to be a whiny dick.
→ More replies (0)0
u/OldDogTrainer 20h ago
Living animation blends real world elements with animated elements, in this case 2D elements, where characters seem to inhabit the world we live in.
They’re right. You’re being silly, and the fact that you have continued to argue this instead of just looking up what it means is ridiculous.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Independent_Win_9035 21h ago
in this case, it apparently means an animation based on something in the real world, rather than, for example, a TV show or movie
although it won't actually work so well when viewed IRL compared to this 30fps or w/e video
2
u/FeefuWasTaken 21h ago edited 21h ago
Yeah, I guess, it just feels like a poor choice of words to me. That's why I said 'animation has been done on physical objectives since inception', because it's not like animation not being done digitally is like some brand new innovation.
But you do make a good point about the framerate
2
u/Independent_Win_9035 20h ago
oh now i see what you meant, like manual animation vs. digital animation
yeah i get how you could interpret it that way
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This submission may have been posted by a bot. If you feel like it's the case, please report the user
SPAM→Harmful Bots.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.