So how you define which interplotation is better? Why decomposition makes it feel more natural? And is there a better way to do this?
rgrao
I think the interpolation by directly doing a linear function of the two endpoints results in arbitrary and non-linear changes in the rotation and scale of the object, resulting in intermediate poses that are unnatural to us. Polar decomposition allows for splitting this interpolation into a rotational interpolation and scaling interpolation, so this improves the intermediate poses by interpolating these two aspects independent of each other. I think this looks more natural to us as seen in the animation, since those individual features are easier to visualize as they change.
ceviri
I think which decomposition "feels more natural" is more of a psychology thing than an actual hard mathematical statement, though I could be wrong.
so this won't hit the endpoint exactly?
So how you define which interplotation is better? Why decomposition makes it feel more natural? And is there a better way to do this?
I think the interpolation by directly doing a linear function of the two endpoints results in arbitrary and non-linear changes in the rotation and scale of the object, resulting in intermediate poses that are unnatural to us. Polar decomposition allows for splitting this interpolation into a rotational interpolation and scaling interpolation, so this improves the intermediate poses by interpolating these two aspects independent of each other. I think this looks more natural to us as seen in the animation, since those individual features are easier to visualize as they change.
I think which decomposition "feels more natural" is more of a psychology thing than an actual hard mathematical statement, though I could be wrong.