I feel like I over-did it a bit.
That's not overdoing it at all.
Looks good.
The new edit is fine too.
You can animate follow thru elements to have different weights/thicknesses, just as you can animate liquids to have different viscocities.
Think about it like this:
Hair = thin. Water = thin.
Leather = thick. Mud = thick.
I think you could go even "thinner" on the hair, especially for the jump.
But really the thickness threshold you set on your follow through elements is a matter of style, taste, and function.
There's a couple things about the run.
I think its that the green line on her shorts is mostly suspended on the y axis.
The knee also seems to have the same thing going on.
Also the foot while on the ground slows down from the spacing.
I ripped off your way of having the character bounce up a pixel after standing
Glad you looked at each frame closely because that's really the only way to understand animation.
I hope you are somewhat kidding here.
Using theories that I didn't invent is in no way ripping.
So lets talk about it.
The bounce up is an animation theory that helps resolve quick motions.
Basically if an object moves to a new position quickly you move it past the destination and then bring it back.
This is sometimes called Moving Past, altho it can generally just be called Resolve.
But realize that resolve covers a large amount of animation topics and can be flexible in definition.
It is can also be related to squash and stretch but it is not exactly the same thing.
There are different ways of showing this, here's a few simple examples:
Here we don't move past at all.
Notice the ball stops instantly on the line.
It "sticks".
Here the ball moves 2 pixels past for only 1 frame.
Notice the motion feels like it gains some resistance.
The ball was moving fast but it "forced" itself to stop.
Here the ball moves repeatedly past its destination at diminishing increments.
Notice the motion is like a diving board, or spring.
It "springs" into position.
Here's another spring motion using a double image of a lighter color.
Just wanted to show there are many different ways of representing this and they have a different affect on the eye.
You can also see this in some of the edits I've done here and lots of my own animations from years ago.
http://kirkbarnett.blogspot.com/2009/10/blog-post_24.htmlhttp://kirkbarnett.blogspot.com/2009/10/click-to-play-dialog-ani-dp-homework.htmlThere's also good examples in this video.
At 2:14.
And 3:25.
Another at 3:38.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H_qYV-GkMSo how many pixels to move past and frames to use for this?
It really just depends.
Even "sticking" to the destination instantly is not wrong.
Most of the time you will want to mix it up and use a variety even in a single animation.
It's also good to note that using this will solve some motions better than using SlowIn/SlowOut. (These terms are often reversed based on who you talk to, so just whichever makes more sense in your mind)
This is because SL/SO reduces the speed of an object as it approaches its destination, which is not always what you want.
Moving past will better retain the force of the motion visually and add more "snap", "pop", "change", etc to the animation.
This also happens in real life.
Move your fist quickly forward and then try to stop it suddenly.
It will move past its final destination and then come back.
Long answer but there ya go.
You will find that this appears in a lot of my work because I like to move things fast and I think it looks cool.
I just don't want you thinking that the things I do with animation are some crazy invention of mine.
There are theories like this you can use to produce a certain visual effect.
Which theories you choose to use and how much can be called a style, but not the theories themselves.