-
shatter effect in adobe after effects
Does anyone know how to freeze the gravity of the shatter effect so the particles never fall.???
-
8 Replies
-
Nesting and Time Remapping.
Mylenium
[Pour Myl
-
Maybe you could crank up the viscosity at that moment, methinks.
-
> Maybe you could crank up the viscosity at that moment, methinks.< Mylenium knows more about AE than I possibly could ever, but tweaking the physics controls in Shatter is far more useful than time remapping. Shatter is incredible. Most of us only sue 10% or less of the functionality. bogiesan This is my standard sigfile so do not take it personally: “For crying out loud, read the freakin’ manual.”
-
In the past, I’ve animated the viscosity property values right at the point I want it to stop. The shattered pieces just stop moving.
If you want a more gradual stop, animate that property over a f ew extra frames.
On the other hand if you’re trying to do an effect where the expolsion stops, but then starts again, you’ll have to do as mylenium says.
—————————————-
Aharon Rabinowitz
aharon(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
http://www.allbetsareoff.com—————————————-
Click the link below to subscribe to the Creative Cow After Effects Podcast, and get free AE video tutorials:https://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=111087911
-
> On the other hand if you’re trying to do an effect where the expolsion stops, but then starts again, you’ll have to do as mylenium says.< Beg to continue to disagree. There is a second Force control in Shatter. You can use it to start up the effect again by keyframing the viscosity to a lower value at the same time. It's not necessarily simple because the shatter map is reapplied but it's much more convincing than time remapping because the physics are realistic. Or you could apply Shatter a second time to a copy of the layer. Shatter is often misunderstood and, as witnessed here, often incompletely explored by the wonks. Want to make Shatter work wonders? Invest in Total Training's AE series. bogiesan This is my standard sigfile so do not take it personally: “For crying out loud, read the freakin’ manual.”
-
[bogiesan] “Or you could apply Shatter a second time to a copy of the layer.”
I thought of this but realized that it won’t work. The old switcheroo does not work in this case. If you use the viscosity method we talked about, how are you going to get the pieces in the duplicate to match up perfectly where it’s supposed to continue exploding. Either time remapping or the second force are the only ways to make sure that the end of the 1st part and the begining of the second part match perfectly.
Furthermore [bogiesan] “it’s much more convincing than time remapping because the physics are realistic.”
Keep in mind we’re talking about an effect in which time stops and then resumes. That means the peices already need to be in motion. When you are using realistic physics there’s going to be a ramp up, even if it’s minute, from no motion to motion. Time remapping, as you know, just plays the frames from the precomp, so there is no ramp up time. It just un-pauses the video.
In effect, you and I are talking about 2 very different effects (neither of which was actually asked about, now that I look at the string). In yours, there is more then one force event. In mine, there is a break in time, and then a resuming of time.Your dsolution is not appropriate for what I was refering to.
Not that you aren’t right about the possibilites, but that’s not what I was talking about.
—————————————-
Aharon Rabinowitz
aharon(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
http://www.allbetsareoff.com—————————————-
Click the link below to subscribe to the Creative Cow After Effects Podcast, and get free AE video tutorials:https://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=111087911
-
> In effect, you and I are talking about 2 very different effects (neither of which was actually asked about, now that I look at the string). In yours, there is more then one force event. In mine, there is a break in time, and then a resuming of time.Your dsolution is not appropriate for what I was refering to.
Not that you aren’t right about the possibilites, but that’s not what I was talking about.< Oh. I suppose I could go back and look at the OP. bogiesan This is my standard sigfile so do not take it personally: “For crying out loud, read the freakin’ manual.” -
> In effect, you and I are talking about 2 very different effects (neither of which was actually asked about, now that I look at the string). In yours, there is more then one force event. In mine, there is a break in time, and then a resuming of time.Your dsolution is not appropriate for what I was refering to.
Not that you aren’t right about the possibilites, but that’s not what I was talking about.< Oh. I suppose I could go back and look at the OP. bogiesan This is my standard sigfile so do not take it personally: “For crying out loud, read the freakin’ manual.”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up