Wiesiek’s ball
Here’s the 10 frames ball with adjusted timing having more dramatic time difference to highlight the change.
And, here’s one with 20 frames and adjusted timing with a more believable timing.
They look much more believable. Love how much these parameters can bring an animation to life.
1 Like
As for me, the first ball looks better, the second less realistic.
Hmmm maybe it’s the speed of the animation? I just thought the first one seemed like it accelerated too quickly. I just halved the times on the second on this one.
The latter is too fast, anyway, I would like a little slower);
This was tough because my original animation used changes in position to simulate the acceleration of the ball (1).
The original animation was asymmetric to make the bounce look more spongy so instead I removed the 3 frames in the bounce that did not mirror the fall and used frame timings instead to create a similar effect (2).
I reworked the original image a lot so that the falling and rising portions of the animation moved an identical amount of pixels between them and purely using frame timings for the acceleration. The only unchanged portions were the very top and the 3 frames where the ball is in contact with the ground where the ball is deformed (3). I’ll admit I was a little lazy and didn’t mess with the shadows too much even though I moved the ball around…
All 3 are 2000ms long, here they are in order:
Not sure which one looks the best but I prefer to work with the consistent framerate from the previous exercise.
1 Like
Exaggerated the bounce effect I had earlier.
Reworked my first one, so that it used alpha in all the layers instead of having a background in each one.
1 Like
Nice. I really like this method of handling framerate.
