PDA

View Full Version : Fix Bezier Interpolation when stretched in Graph Editor



probiner
03-19-2012, 02:07 PM
In the Graph Editor, stretching a curve with keyframes using "Bezier Spline" interpolation on Value ↕ or Time ↔ , will destroy the curve's shape, because the handles remain the same.
As one can see in the following image comparing Bezier Splines and TCB on both 3D space and Graph Editor:
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/animatics/Lightwave/Beziers-bug-graph-2.png
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/animatics/Lightwave/Beziers-bug-3D.png

This is an issue because it means any work done in the graph editor with this interpolation is not scalable and must be redone.

Stretch should not only affect the Keyframes but also the Bezier Handles

LW could gain a lot by allowing the usage of both Bezier paths (no keyframes) to be disignated as motions paths, along side with keyframed 3d space motion paths with bezier interpolation handles.
But for now fixing this would be nice.

Cheers

Dodgy
03-19-2012, 07:17 PM
It's one of the many reasons why I don't like to use Bezier handles for animation, whatever the package. If you want a smooth point, you can just set Tension to 1 in the TCB system and it'll always stay smooth no matter what happens to it. If you don't want a full stop on an item, just set it to T of .9 or .8. Beziers just seem overly fiddly for this kind of management.

probiner
05-01-2012, 04:37 AM
Well, in AE you can't also scale the Path, but you can copy the anchor points to a mask and then scale it and copy it back to the Path. So it's not like it's impossible. It's "just" scaling the handles along with the anchor points, like you would do in a vector package. I don't know the specifics, but what seems to be complicated about that?

For me the problem with TCB is that is not straight forward when shaping a path and you'll probably need more anchor points for the same shape you would do with Beziers.

What are the other reasons you don't like to use Bezier handles for animation? I kind of get your point on numeric control, though.

Cheers