Left or Right?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

http://www.danharlow.com/blog/2007/10/04/what-kind-of-brain-do-you-have/

I only can see her moving clockwise - which seems to indicate I'm a woo-ist! :'(

I believe this left/right brain thing is a bit of a myth/simplification etc, but I'm happy to be put right on that one.

[median]

Anti clockwise predominately. However I find you can 'flip' quite readily. Bit like the Necker cube.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube
O0

[Melanie]

I can't for the life of me see her going any way but clockwise. Can't flip at all. And believe me I've tried.

Suppose there's no hope for me, then. :-[

[wooo_oops]

Same as median - first clockwise and then t'other way. But I am more right brained than left, given the characteristics.

If you scroll down the page until you can only see the bottom half of the legs, you can 'flip' it more easily.

But that could be cheating. 8)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Nope, still only clockwise for me.

[Admin]

I saw it go both ways but then realised you can see her nipples. :cheesy:

Sort of lost it after that... :-[ ;D

[Melanie]

Same as median - first clockwise and then t'other way. But I am more right brained than left, given the characteristics.

If you scroll down the page until you can only see the bottom half of the legs, you can 'flip' it more easily.

But that could be cheating. 8)


Hurrah!!

Thanks for that. I had to scroll down till I could just see her toes, then squint a lot and force myself to see counter-clockwise movement, and then it worked! Scrolling up again to see the whole thing, it seemed so easy!

I'd like to bet my first reaction whenever I look at it afresh will still be clockwise, though.

Fascinating.

[Zaira]

I saw it go clockwise then I blinked and it was going anti clockwise, I blinked again and it was going clockwise. Is that good or bad? ;)

[wooo_oops]

I saw it go both ways but then realised you can see her nipples. :cheesy:

Sort of lost it after that... :-[ ;D

They explain that as you using your other brain...;D

[n8rae]

I'm sorry to say that you have all been had.

Watch for a little while longer and you will see the animation change.
At one point she is standing on her left leg, then a while later she switches to her right leg.

it's still cool though (and not just cos the nipples) as either way you can make your brain see it both ways if you miss the clues.

nathan.... still watching it (and not just cos the nipples).

[n8rae]

I'm sorry to say that you have all been had.

Watch for a little while longer and you will see the animation change.
At one point she is standing on her left leg, then a while later she switches to her right leg.

it's still cool though (and not just cos the nipples) as either way you can make your brain see it both ways if you miss the clues.

nathan.... still watching it (and not just cos the nipples).

No i was just plain wrong, it was way too clever for me.
I think i need to be more skeptical.

nathan... editing it in final cut pro.

[BillB]

Hi,

John Jackson
I saw it go both ways but then realised you can see her nipples. :cheesy:

Sort of lost it after that... :-[ ;D


I saw the figure rotating ant-clockwise initially, but then the figure flipped clockwise, maybe due too some creative imagination. :-[ ;D Like John I have to blame it on those nipples O0 and also I see black as beautiful. :cheesy:

BillB

[brianp]

http://www.danharlow.com/blog/2007/10/04/what-kind-of-brain-do-you-have/


Clockwise for me every time no matter what I do.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Widdershins first, then clockwise.

I've found a way of switching it at will: look at the leg she's dancing on and imagine it's the right, then imagine it's the left. This seems to alter the apparent direction in which she's turning. Works consistently for me, anyway.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Sorry, wooo oops. I've just noticed that you had a similar idea.

I suppose you and I must be " legs" men. Unlike John:-)

[fruitfly]

Clockwise for me every time no matter what I do.
Try standing on your head!

Seriously, I could only see clockwise until I tilted my head to look at it upside down. Then I could see both. When I looked at it normally again I could still see both ways for a short time but it soon reverted to only clockwise. Why?

[n8rae]

Hi all,

At first i my brain caused me problems and i posted the first comment above about the animation changing directions every few seconds. Then i changed my mind.
Then I got a bit obsessed and decided to find some evidence within the animation which could prove which way the dancer was spinning.
I imported it into final cut pro and looked at each frame at a time and found two peices of evidence which informs my conclusion.

My conclusion is that the dancer is spinning anti clockwise!

So some facts:
The animation is 25 frames long.
It is 1 second long and is only played forward.
My girlfriend says she can only see it going clockwise.


If the dancer is a solid modle the hair can move as a solid, but if it is a human dancer the hair would flow behind the head. If you look at this still of frame 15, you can clearly see the hair is not in line with the head and is following it.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z131/shonanathanrae/evidence/frame15.jpg
This means that the dancer is moving anti clockwise.


The second and most important evidence is seen in frame 9.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z131/shonanathanrae/evidence/frame9.jpg
This shows that the leg which is held out is behind the pivot leg. following this frame the leg is traveling from right to left behind the body of the dancer, then round to the front.

Again this means that the dancer must be rotating anti clockwise.

If anyone can find anymore evidence to support or counter my conclusion i would love to see it.

nathan.... not quite made up with my girlfriend after our argument about this stupid animation.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Hi, Nathan,

It looks as if similar points are being raised in the discussion thread in the link itself. Perhaps you've already looked at that, but I thought I'd mention it just in case you hadn't.

[Cuddles]

Weird. Usually with this sort of thing I can flip between the two views whenever I feel like. This is the first one I've ever seen that I couldn't. I do see both directions, but it flips randomly without my control.

However, while I haven't analysed it as closely as Nathan, it is very obvious where the start and end of the loop is because it is a very messy join. I wonder if this has an effect on how we see it?

[Cuddles]

Someone posted this on the JREF forum as well. I can now happily switch between directions. Interestingly, there was a smaller version embedded in the thread that seemed to be much easier than the one in the link. I wonder if the size of the image affects how we percieve it. It seems reasonable, since the area we actually focus on at any particular time is much smaller than we think, so maybe there is a difference between having the whole picture in this area and only having part of it there.

Edit: Forgot link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95433

[Muttley]

Funny, but when I load it into Photoshop, it shows 34 frames changing every 0.03 seconds. But whatever the details it is just a single repeating series of images.

Looking at the whole image, I see it randomly changing direction. I've tried watching it with somebody else. We both see changes of direction, but not at the same time.

Now I've looked at it a lot, I can sometimes make it change direction, and it's much easier if you concentrate on a particular part of the image. Easiest for me is by masking the top, and only watching the legs. I can then make them rotate either way, or oscillate back and forth without rotating.

Ultimately though, as Arte Johnson used to say in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in, "Very interesting - but stupid!"

M. (That dates me, doesn't it?)

[Mongrel]

Ultimately though, as Arte Johnson used to say in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in, "Very interesting - but stupid!"

M. (That dates me, doesn't it?)

Not really stupid. It's an easy way to show us laymen how easy it is to frell with our perceptions and\or the limitations of the way visual (in this case) information is processed.

Oh, I can only see the dancer going clockwise :-[ I could switch the windmill in the JREF thread at will though

[Blinky]

When first viewing it, initially I saw only clockwise. Like others when I concentrated on the shadow I was able to make it switch direction. To me it all comes down to the shadow of the left foot. The shadow of the right foot appears to always be moving anti-clockwise. But, I can concentrate on the shadow of the left foot and "trick" myself into seeing the shadow of the left either move in front of the right foot or behind the right foot. Now I am able to make it change direction at will.

[Zaira]

I agree with Mongrel.

"Not really stupid. It's an easy way to show us laymen how easy it is to frell with our perceptions and\or the limitations of the way visual (in this case) information is processed."

Me my son and my grandson checking it out at the same time calling out clockwise! Anticlockwise! All seeing it change at different times. All seeing it go both ways. Wow!

[Blinky]

Also, it's not surprising that the people that really try to analyze (left brain) the picture only see it move anti-clockwise (left brain).

[bindeweede]

It always surprises me how stuff travels round the internet. I suppose it shouldn't.

http://www.dslzoneuk.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6972

[ZERO]

It's a two dimensional image. It only appears to rotate. All parts of the image are the same distance from the viewer at all times. The raised leg moves away from the "pivot" leg to the right and then moves back to the "pivot" leg continuing to the left. You only have to imagine weather it is passing behined or in front to see whatever rotation direction you want.
It is easier to do this if you view the legs only so you don't get the visual clues from the arms, which are doing the same thing ie, moving back and forwards from the body but not around it. In order for them to move around the body you need depth but there is no depth in a two dimensionl image. Remember, it is a black shape that has the appearence of a dancer but it is not a human. We just assume the three dimensional behaviour of a human shape.
That's what I thought when I wes looking at it anyway.