ok, here I am off to bootcamp. I'm guessing that this is the right way to post my work based on what others have done.
I'll post some of the exercises (probably not all) and the final projects. First up I have a few of the bounces to make sure I'm on the right track.

a simple bouncing ball loop. My first attempt had too much squash and stretch but I scaled it back to what I think looks to be a suitable maximum

Click to view attachment

Next - the 2 balls bouncing to rest. I used NO squetch on the heavy solid ball. Is that right?

Click to view attachment

and finally, here are the balls bouncing across the screen from different directions. Is there a trick to adjusting the rate of slowdown? I just eyeballed the progressively reduced slope of the translate x channel but I was wondering if there was a more accurate way to adjust this.

Click to view attachment


Thanks for lookin'
--jerry

Jerry,
First, welcome to Bootcamp! You done messed up now.

I'll take a crack at your ball bounce.
I like the looping nature of it.

I try to make it clear in the attached image that the stretch is going the correct direction in your animation.
I hope that's not misunderstood. I had to remind myself that the motion is not going left to right but up to down in your exericise as I was breaking it down.

I pointed out in J Man's recent ball bounce that I like to have more than one squash frame to sell the impact.
It may not be needed but... it might! So keep that in mind. This will be especially true when you leave the realm of bouncing balls.

Thanks Rodney, can't think of a better group of people to mess up with



Thanks for having a look. I'm impressed by the graphic representation of the mov file. How do you do that? It nicely points out any acceleration issues and helps analyze the arc of motion... very handy...I wannit .

I'll add another squash frame and try to figure out that acceleration issue. I'm a little confused about the first contact issue because I thought I'd done that so perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying about the first contact and need you to drill it through my thick skull.

thanks again,... and, oh yeah, SIR, YES SIR.
--jerry

Timelines, they make A:M ROCK!

A friendly tip, post screenshots of your timeline. That is the best way to tweak these bootcamp animations, I found.

Welcome to camp, soldier!

here are the bouncing balls with 2 squash frames as per Rodney's suggestion.

Now, not to stir up trouble, (ok, maybe just a little bit...) but Sarge Dhar has been preaching a different line than Rodney about the contact frames. He's even quoting an animation bible to suggest we just use 1 stretch contact, 1 squash contact and then off the ground. I'm sure this is just a clever pedogogical ploy to force deep thinking. The only way I've thought to resolve this distressing state of affairs is to convince myself you're both right ... The amount of force (and squash) may determine which is best. When there is a lot of squash 2 squash frames looks good, otherwise it looks kind of sticky. In my bouncing to rest exercise I used Rodney's way for the first three bounces and then switched to Dhar's way. What a fence sitter I am ...

Feel free to duke it out right here on my bootcamp topic section where it will be safe from public view... Or more likely, help me understand what the issues are. I'm assuming that the basics of squash and stretch scale to more complex figures so it would be good to know some of the subtle principles.

Thanks for your time and your advice!
--jerry

single ball bouncing loop Click to view attachment

Bouncing to rest Click to view attachment

2 balls bouncing across Click to view attachment

Yup. Same bible; Richard William's book. (unless Dhar is using a new bible these days)

I don't see any discrepancy in Dhar's approach and mine.
I don't take any 'rule of animation' entirely literally though as there are too many variables.
Perhaps this is what you are picking up?
The extra frame of squash would be there only if the ease (slow in/slow out) of the motion required it.
A ball of more rubbery substance for example.

The study of the contact frame (and moreso squash and stretch with relation to it) is an interesting one and the more I look into it the more I realize just how much is subject to interpretation and personal taste. Its important to realize some examples are based on early theories, some by preference for the particular effect needed and (dare I say it?) some appear to just be wrong*.

Is there a right or wrong way? I think I'd just as soon reject those two terms altogether.
There may be a right or wrong way to do it but there is *always* a preferable way.
The preferred way won't keep me from experimenting.
One could do a lot worse than say,"I followed the example in Richard William's book" though.

Richard William's book more so than many encourages the stretch to contact prior to squash.
I champion that here too. Its my personal preference.
As not everyone has Richard Williams book it'd be hard for me to hold anyone to the letter of that law however.

I'd love to put together an article on the various ways the ball bounce has been demonstrated throughout the history of animation and identify those that championed each and whether (or more importantly why) they adapted.
Such an article is a much bigger task than I once thought as every time I pick up a book on animation I see it has yet to be locked down in the animators' corporate mind. Even Richard Williams takes luminaries such as Preston Blair to task for getting it 'wrong'.

Its also important to understand evaluator preferences or you end up just going around in circles.
As always... pick what works for you and discard the rest.
When evaluating I try first and foremost to look at what is there already.

Thanks for bringing the subject up. Its one of interest to me.


*I subscribe to the theory in animation that 'if something looks right it is right for the purpose'.
Still, right or wrong its the animator that has to make a decision and live with it.
If they can explain how they arrived at that decision all the better.

Copyright law provides for some sharing of this information here but I'm not going to get too crazy with it.
I encourage everyone to go out and buy 'Richard Williams The Animator's Survival Kit'.
You'll be glad you did.

If we ever get to the point of issuing out a handout to ABC student we could issue out the important lessons related by Richard William's therein. Without looking it up I believe we can share 15 pages with each student enrolled for educational purposes.

Attached is a page often skimmed over quickly by those reading through Mr. William's book (page 39).
Note: He discourages squash and stretch when animating the ball. He emphasizes timing and (in particular) spacing.

Later (pages 92 -95) he illustrates the process behind the stretch and contact of it all (assuming we want to add it and most do). He quotes Ken Harris referring to Preston Blair's process as saying, "We can make this much better. We need to have a contact in there before the squash. Put in a contact where the ball just touches the ground and then it squashes. That'll give it more life. (Move the preceding drawing back a bit to accommodate it).

The reason you don't want a contact on the takeoff is explained as well.

"And do we do the same when it takes off again?" Answer: "Not in this case - just when it contacts. You get the "change", then its off again."

According to Richard Williams the next edition of Preston Blair's animation book followed Ken Harris's description of how its should be done.

Rodney explained everything, perfectly. His approach is very encouraging and allows the student to experiment and explore. My approach stems from my own weakness (and is the old, old fashioned way); that I need structure first to live by before I can go on exploring. I'm a discplinarian type which no longer works in this day and age but I throw it out there for those who just may happen to choose that way of learning.

Structure first is not only a great way to live by but is the best way to learn (I think).
We all need that structure. Who can properly proceed without it?

Within ABC some might say there is a bit too much flexibility... no right or wrong answer.
This can be problematic when we are trying to learn.

ABC (not unlike TaoA:M) is in a way entirely self critiquing but learning to critique our own work isn't easy.
What do we look for? How do we determine success? Who sets the standard and criteria for that success?
Are tangible goals being met along the way? Are we even formulating and asking the right questions?

At this point, each individual animator works within the framework set by Alonso Soriano to exercise the principles of animation.
As structured, ABC may not always provide the answers but it helps formulate the questions. As we learn the answers and the questions we pass that experience on to others.

For my part I would like to set milestones and goals for each animator to meet along the way but perhaps that isn't the purpose here.
There is one aspect of learning the principles of animation that simply cannot be taught.
To really begin to understand animation we must put those principles into practice.
Practice. Practice. Practice.

Jerry,
I'm really liking your last 'bouncing ball 2 frame squash'.
Looks pretty good as is but...
I think you misunderstood.

The two frames in the squash (if included at all) shouldn't be the same.
Rather you'd have the initial squash followed by the full squash and that becomes the anticipation for the launch.
Think exageration and followthrough if that'll help too.

When I think of these exercises it sometimes helps to get away from thinking of the shapes as balls.
Once you see them as 'real' objects the interactions (with floor... other objects, physics) make more sense.

Are we overthinking this ball exercise? HECK YEAH!!!

Rodney's the man! Thanks for your thoughtful response and even the peek into to williams' book. that really put things in perspective!




you're absolutely right... er..., oh yeah, you've rejected that term. Ok, I prefer your approach . It was illuminating to see how williams seems to suggest restraint when using squash and stretch. that's probably important. I'll be sure to look for Williams' book but I live on the tiny island of Bermuda and we don't have mega anything. I'm sure I can find it somewhere on the internet. I also go to Chicago a couple of times a year so I'll be sure to get it.

And I absolutely agree with you about the contact frame prior to squash. I noticed you championing that before I even came to bootcamp so I kept that in mind. I think it "looks" much better that way... and that's the final arbiter. You seem to imply that there were differences of opinion on that? I'd love to hear what they are... (sorry, I like debate) because I can't right now even imagine what the issues would be...



yes, do it. I'd read it! When you think of all the times characters, or parts of characters, contact and leave the ground this is one of those important but underappreciated topics... obviously not underappreciated to those who put bootcamp together!

And Dhar, what you refer to as a weakness is very good practice. Knowing the importance of the principle behind the rule is invaluable so by mentioning this rule of thumb to us greenhorns you do a very good thing. It really helps to hear these rules of thumb as we look at our attempt and think... what the heck is wrong with this.!. I'm sure your advice has helped many of us move along in bootcamp. So what you refer to as a weakness is a huge time saver and very helpful! Thanks! And please don't stop!

I didn't really mean to stir up trouble and it looks like I didn't (whew). As i've already confessed elsewhere in the forum, I'm an academic and have the curse of enjoying disputation in good fun. AND as I suspected you were both right....er preferable.

--jerry

In your 'Bouncing to rest' and '2 balls bouncing across' exercises I have absolutely nothing to critique.
Spot on.

The metalic surface on the heavier ball is a cheat... (a nice cheat though!)

I'm not suggesting you get rid of the metal material.
As long as you understand that the purpose here is to sell the action through its motion alone you've got it.
Then adding textures pluses that action up even more.

"Bravo, Charlie Mike!*"


*translation="Good job soldier, Continue the Mission."





Edit: Just read your response. Thanks for that. Animation is tough but we are tougher! Grrrrr.
We'll beat this thing yet.



"In our weakness lies our strength". Anyone that has seen a "Dhar's Production" animation knows Dhar is well grounded in the practice.

Just wait until you see how Richard Williams disregards his own advice and commences to show how ball animation translates to character squash and stretch. Its an eye opener.

If we have an ultimate goal here it would be to produce 'thinking animators' not assembly line mechanisms.
Anyone can reproduce a couple balls bouncing but how many can understand 'why it might be so'.
Feedback from everyone is appreciated in this endeavor.

Ah, yes, makes perfect sense. I'll be sure to keep that in mind as I do the bouncing ball with tail. i should probably redo the regular bouncing ball and try to appreciate the visual impact difference between the two.




The answer would be yes if we were actually bouncing a ball... but we are not... we are creating the illusion of bouncing a ball so I'll have to disagree with you on that... no overthinking going on here.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
--jerry