I'm a little confused as to why squash and stretch is as important as it is. When and why do we trade realism (maintaining the ball's shape as in the real world) with the exaggerated stretching? And to what extent?
cs248acct
I think in this case, if it's a non-rigid ball, in real life there would be some stretching (since it reaches its highest velocity right before hitting the ground), and squashing (since the force of the ground deforms it). But, I know this lecture had some other examples of intentionally moving away from realism, and I'm also curious how the artists make that decision!
m11
Are squash and stretch added to create more realistic motion or is it more of a creative decision? Since adding stretch and squash actually creates motions that do not seem realistic sometimes, my understanding was that it was therefore a creative decision to add them to bring more attention to a certain motion
maq
@m11 i think it is a combination of both. For most objects, there is some form of squash when it hits something (since most objs are not 100% rigid), so having some squash can make it more realistic. But overall, it looks like many animations seem to exaggerate reality and squash & stretch decisions can be made creatively as well
yxu72
What will be a typical semantic to implement such effect? Would it be setting offset based on the general motion of the object, or each vertex of the object will follow its own trajectory?
jtburkle
@lorinpoo In contemporary animation, motion is much more readable when squashing and stretching are used, and specifically in collisions between objects, it allows viewers to see what kind of material they're made out of. Because animation is not necessarily about realistic simulation but about visual communication of action and motion, techniques like these are extremely useful especially in 2D animation.
I'm a little confused as to why squash and stretch is as important as it is. When and why do we trade realism (maintaining the ball's shape as in the real world) with the exaggerated stretching? And to what extent?
I think in this case, if it's a non-rigid ball, in real life there would be some stretching (since it reaches its highest velocity right before hitting the ground), and squashing (since the force of the ground deforms it). But, I know this lecture had some other examples of intentionally moving away from realism, and I'm also curious how the artists make that decision!
Are squash and stretch added to create more realistic motion or is it more of a creative decision? Since adding stretch and squash actually creates motions that do not seem realistic sometimes, my understanding was that it was therefore a creative decision to add them to bring more attention to a certain motion
@m11 i think it is a combination of both. For most objects, there is some form of squash when it hits something (since most objs are not 100% rigid), so having some squash can make it more realistic. But overall, it looks like many animations seem to exaggerate reality and squash & stretch decisions can be made creatively as well
What will be a typical semantic to implement such effect? Would it be setting offset based on the general motion of the object, or each vertex of the object will follow its own trajectory?
@lorinpoo In contemporary animation, motion is much more readable when squashing and stretching are used, and specifically in collisions between objects, it allows viewers to see what kind of material they're made out of. Because animation is not necessarily about realistic simulation but about visual communication of action and motion, techniques like these are extremely useful especially in 2D animation.