New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Before Mickey Mouse

The inspiration for today's animated pictures began long ago with dreams and toys

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

EACH TIME A PHOTON hits light receptors on the retina, it triggers a Rube-Goldbergian chemical reaction that takes tens of milliseconds to reset. We don't notice this interruption—our brains smooth it over into an apparently fluid stream of visual information—but the delay provided just the opening animators like Walt Disney needed.

Animators, of course, were not the first to notice this perceptual quirk, often called persistence of vision. Aristotle found that when he stared at the sun, the burned-in image faded away slowly. Roman poet Titus Lucretius Carus described a dream in which a sequence of images presented rapidly before him produced the illusion of motion. By then the Chinese had invented the chao hua chih kuan (“the pipe that makes fantasies appear”), a cylindrical contraption that, when spun in the wind, displayed a succession of images. It gave “an impression of movement of animals or men,” writes Joseph Needham in Science and Civilisation in China.

In the 19th century Europeans developed their own animated pictures in the form of spinning disks and zoetropes featuring sequential drawings visible through a slit, says Donald Crafton of the University of Notre Dame and author of Before Mickey. The first animated film, Phantasmagoria, came out in 1908, depicting the decapitation of a clown and other slapstick in a series of 700 drawings, which took two minutes to show. It was a visual tour de force, though choppy by today's exacting standards.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Science didn't catch up to the animators until 1912, when Max Wertheimer, in Experimental Studies on the Seeing of Motion, revealed that it takes 25 frames per second to fool the human eye. It's a good thing people don't have the vision of fruit flies, which need more than 200 frames per second to succumb to the illusion of motion.

Brendan Borrell is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, Outside, Scientific American, and many other publications, and is the co-author (with ecologist Manuel Molles) of the textbook Environment: Science, Issues, Solutions. He traveled to Brazil with the support of the Mongabay Special Reporting Initiative. Follow him on Twitter @bborrell.

More by Brendan Borrell
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Before Mickey Mouse” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 2 (), p. 48
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0810-48a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe