> > Are you sure it was galloping and not trotting? I always thought it > > was trotting. You don't need a camera to see all a horses > feet off the > > ground (at once) when its galloping -- it's pretty obvious. > > > > Didn't stop most painters showing it at the wrong point of > the stride. Always made me wonder about their powers of observation. >
I think that's a bit unfair on the painters of yesteryear. If you look at Muybridge's picture sequence you'll see 16 frames. In only 2 of them are all 4 feet off the ground. Considering the speed at which a horse gallops it doesn't surprise me that it took people so long to figure it out. I'm sure there are many, many things which we take for granted now that the people of Tomorrow's World will laugh at us for. Bob
