Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pis0m0jad0 1726 days ago
I also couldn't help but notice this after reading your comment, but in the image it seems pretty clearly that the A configuration is pretty incoherent. The 5 o'clock boy you mentioned, for example, clearly has a sleeve for the right side of his face, the boy at 2 o'clock is also missing a large chunk of his head, and of course the two boys at 8 o'clock overlap, but, now that I look again, in an incoherent way. To me it seems that the answer to where the boy goes is simply that "the A configuration is invalid, but slightly so that we might not notice"
1 comments

Something like that, yeah.

If done right, the idea is that in the one configuration you have thirteen 24/25ths of a boy, so thirteen 96%-boys. You hide this as each one being slightly skinny.

In the other configuration you have twelve 26/25ths of a boy, so twelve 104%-boys. You hide this as each one being slightly fat.

The danger is that if you make the drawing too detailed and gorgeous, someone will be able to look at a little detail like eyes or so, if one of these 4% slices contains an eye then you may end up with boys with 1 or 3 eyes, something that any looker would say spoils the illusion.

You have a couple options there.

- People will accept a "dead zone" where the two moving parts interact, you can try to locate an eye inside the "dead zone" so that you don't trigger this W-T-F moment.

- Use cartoonishness/ambiguity. So maybe this dot means "eye" on this cartoon but "freckle" on that cartoon, similarly by locating the exact eye on the border between the two, maybe half a line goes from being "long eyelashes" to being "the middle of a winking eye" or so.