Uniform scale wiggle expression WITH loop

[GM Rod]

Hey guys!

I’m trying to achieve this (attached image).
So the way I’m tackling it, is I create the triangles in Illustrator, then properly prepare for export into After Effects.
Once in AE, I import, convert to layered comp and all that jazz.
But, since it’s so many of them, it’s tedious, slow and just…
It just feels like I’m trying to brute-force something that probably has a better, smarter way to accomplish.
I’ve thought of doing it using repeaters, but that doesn’t work because whatever effect I apply to the original is going to get replicated to the copies. Unless there’s some expression or some other way to have it NOT do that?
I’ve also found plenty of posts about uniform scale wiggle + loop, but I couldn’t get any of them to work because none of the replies I’ve found, have both the uniform scale + wiggle AND the loop in one tidy expression. There’s a good chance I’m failing at putting these together.

So to explain better, what I want to see happen is:
– Screen filled with the triangles
– Each one, independently and randomly, changes size via uniform scale wiggle (unless there’s a better way?)
– When I get that done, I’ll use a fractal displacement map to control their opacity, so like in that picture, some of them disappear. Or maybe just by wiggling radically, that’d happen already? As in if the scale can be dropped to 0% for instance.

Help?

[angie_taylor]

You dont need to apply an expression. Just follow the steps I did in the video exactly

[angie_taylor]

I sent you a video that showed you the best way to do this. Just follow those steps and you'll be good to go. Dont use repeaters and expressions as it will take ages to render and will be much more work

[GM Rod]

I just re-did it using your video.
I still have a problem, but I think I know why:

First, the way I want them to look, makes it so the Illustrator design has them cut off at the sides:

The way you did it, each column only "points" up or down, and you only have whole triangles in your layer.
Which brings me to the AE part. Because I have the cutoff ones on the sides, this is what happens:

Because, from what I understand from the video, you counted the rows and columns, right? You had 11 and 24, respectively. I have smaller triangles so for me it's 18 and 48.
I guess all that's left now is to remove the cutoff ones?
I did it like that because I also wanted to do a loop where they move side to side/up and down, and I need it to loop so the first and last frame have to look the same...

[angie_taylor]

So, instead of using transform on one triangle, create a "tile" to repeat. Dont offset the second transform effect horizontally, thats what's causing them to overlap the edges

[angie_taylor]

Can you maybe put the AI file on dropbox and share a link here so I can download it?

[GM Rod]

Ok here we go.

I even tried making another one and duplicated them differently, and it also didn't work.
I'll link both files.

File 1

File 2

[angie_taylor]

Thanks, will get back to you ASAP

[Rick Gerard]

Whether you set up your triangles in Illustrator or After Effects as a shape layer it's all a matter of math. To keep things simple my main comp is 2000 X 2000

I set up a grid for reference with 100 X 100 squares

Four triangles properly positioned in a group give me exactly what I want, triangles that are centered in the grid and smaller than the grid. The group is positioned precisely in the upper left corner of the comp.

Add some two repeaters and you have this:

Add Card Dance looking at fractal noise and you get this with z position and scale or just scale. 

Here's a project file.

I've done this with octagons and even animated shape layers that look like birds. It's all in the math.

 

[GM Rod]

This is SO CLEAN.

But, unbelievably, still not quite there.

Because, I need every triangle to be equidistant from each other in all three sides.
This is not that.
As soon as I arrange them in the right way to look correct, it messes the card wipe back up...

At first, I thought it's because the number of columns changes.

But no, it's because card wipe will not work with any design that overlaps, because it will always "see" a piece of the next shape.
That is, if I understood correctly how Card Wipe works.
Unbelievable how hard this is, for such a simple idea, eh?

[GM Rod]

Also another little detail I haven't mentioned.
The idea is for them to never GROW from that equidistant position. They should only shrink and come back to "full" size.

[Rick Gerard]

Can you set up the maximum and minimum grow and shrink using the luminance value of the displacement player. 50% luminance call brightness equals no change.

[GM Rod]

Awesome!
But what about the overlapping problem?

Any ideas on that one?

[angie_taylor]

If you set the Scale parameter's minimum value to -1 and maximum to 1 they should never overlap as they will only ever get smaller.

To solve any further issues with overlapping you'll need to experiment with the original scale values of the triangles and the space between them till you come up with a balance that works - good old informed trial and error! 🙂

Thanks to Rick for continuining with this while I was sleeping 🙂

[angie_taylor]

In Rick's example, I just opened up the Original Triangles shape laer and adjusted a couple of parameters to affect the spacing and size of the triangles so they no longer overlap. The parameters I change were the Outer Radius of Polystar 1 and the Y Position of Polystar 2. You can go further till some triangles disappear, then increase the X and Y scale in Card Dance to compensate.

[Rick Gerard]

There are several ways to control the size of the scale change in Card Dance. 

One way is to adjust the luminance value of the gradient layer. You can experiment with this. The Displacement layer in the sample comp is already set to 100% white. If your displacement layer is not set to 100% white you can do so. When that is done turn add Curves below Fractal Noise, turn off Fractal noise, and take a look at the pattern. If it overlaps grab the top right corner of the RGB curves handle and drag it straight down until you eliminate the overlap. It will look something like this:

When that is done you can turn fractal noise back on and you will end up with no overlap.

You can also limit the card dance multipliers for the X and Y scale:

Because of the original radius and position, this is as close as I can get without changing the radius and position of all 4 master triangles so they will fill the screen. I don't have time to fiddle with that right now but if you open the sample comp and do a little fiddling you'll catch on.

My preferred method of using Card Dance is to combine the multipliers and the Curves adjustment to the displacement layer. As long as you remember that 50% brightness (color value) will result in no change in position or scale in Card Dance, you can completely control how much the tiles are going to change their size and/or position.

I have updated the project file so it is now set up like the last screenshot. Feel free to experiment.

One final thought. If you want to be able to fill in all of the gaps your master comp or canvas must be in the same ratio as an equilateral triangle. This project was set up using squares but an equilateral triangle will not fit in a square. If you make the outer radius 111 pixels and you set the Transform Polystar 1 scale to 99.866, 100 you get pretty close to a 192 X 166.5 box. That would give you a 1920 X 1650 comp with 10 rows and 10 columns. I just sourceRectAtTime to get those numbers and the comp is in the latest version of the sample project file.

It would actually be easier to fudge on the triangle and just create it using a rectangle converted to a bezier path. If your rectangle was 190 X 166 you could create a perfect grid for card dance and the triangles would look like they were perfect.

Like I said earlier, it's all about the math.

[GM Rod]

So I've finally had time to go back into this.

THANK YOU for the both of you for all the help, really.