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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe