在每两个关键帧之间插入空白的新帧，然后在这些新帧上绘制衔接两个关键帧的中间 画。 备注 中间画的处理是最能表现动画师个人风格的领域。关于中间画的绘制有许多参考理论， 你可以在互联网上搜索“animation analysis (动画分析)”找到大量相关资料，在此不再赘 述。 在本实例中，我首先确定脚跟在一帧中的位置，然后画出整只脚，接着确定膝盖位置， 然后画出整条腿。 你很快会发现，添加的帧越多，时间轴就越不好管理。你可以为动画帧添加颜色标签： all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

在每两个关键帧之间插入空白的新帧，然后在这些新帧上绘制衔接 两个关键帧的中间画。 备注 中间画的处理是最能表现动画师个人风格的领域。关于中间画的 绘制有许多参考理论，你可以在互联网上搜索“animation analysis (动画分析)”找到大量相关资料，在此不再赘述。 在本实例中，我首先确定脚跟在一帧中的位置，然后画出整只 脚，接着确定膝盖位置，然后画出整条腿。 你很快会发现，添加的帧越多，时间轴就越不好管理。你可以为动 all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ��� } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range- based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

在每两个关键帧之间插入空白的新帧，然后在这些新帧上绘制衔接两个关键帧 的中间画。 备注 中间画的处理是最能表现动画师个人风格的领域。关于中间画的绘制有许多 参考理论，你可以在互联网上搜索“animation analysis (动画分析)”找到大量相 关资料，在此不再赘述。 在本实例中，我首先确定脚跟在一帧中的位置，然后画出整只脚，接着确定 膝盖位置，然后画出整条腿。 你很快会发现，添加的帧越多，时间轴就越不好管理。你可以为动画帧添加颜 all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

在每两个关键帧之间插入空白的新帧，然后在这些新帧上绘制衔接两个关键帧 的中间画。 备注 中间画的处理是最能表现动画师个人风格的领域。关于中间画的绘制有许多 参考理论，你可以在互联网上搜索“animation analysis (动画分析)”找到大量相 关资料，在此不再赘述。 在本实例中，我首先确定脚跟在一帧中的位置，然后画出整只脚，接着确定 膝盖位置，然后画出整条腿。 你很快会发现，添加的帧越多，时间轴就越不好管理。你可以为动画帧添加颜 all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ��� } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range- based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates

all iterable C++ types. for (T x : list ) { ... } It will work with standard tooling and static analysis, and can be faster by defaulting to in-place access. For this reason range-based iterators should is faster. Personally I like the range-based for in principle, since it works better with static analysis, it has a faster best-case speed, and it is always possible to write it in a way that replicates