Key Findings
- All 5 breast motion keywords (bouncing breasts, jiggling breasts, breast motion blur, swaying breasts, dynamic breast movement) produced no visible difference from the control
- Topless + jumping rope alone generates stable jump rope poses consistently (0/3 breakdown rate across all conditions)
- Breast depiction remained static in all conditions — no visible bounce, blur, or deformation was observed
- As still images, “motion” is inherently difficult to express through keywords alone
What You’ll Learn
- Stability of topless jump rope prompts
- Whether breast motion keywords produce visible effects
- Limitations of motion expression in still image generation
Experiment Setup
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Model | z-image-turbo (6B, photorealistic distilled model) |
| Steps | 8 |
| Sampler | euler |
| Scheduler | ddim_uniform |
| CFG | 1.0 |
| Image Size | 1024×1024 |
| Seeds | 42, 123, 789 (fixed) |
| Variable | Breast motion keyword only (1 variable) |
Base Prompt
Only the {KEYWORD} portion changes per condition. A00 (control) omits this part entirely.
Test Conditions
| ID | Added Keyword | Intent |
|---|---|---|
| A00 | (none) | Control |
| A01 | bouncing breasts | Most direct bounce expression |
| A02 | jiggling breasts | Texture/vibration expression |
| A03 | breast motion blur | Combined with motion blur |
| A04 | swaying breasts | Gentle swaying expression |
| A05 | dynamic breast movement | Abstract dynamic expression |
A00: Control (No Additional Keyword)
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 correctly reproduced the jump rope pose — both feet off the ground, both hands holding the rope
- 3/3 showed static breast depiction — no bounce or blur observed
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
- 3/3 barefoot (no shoes specified in prompt)
A01: bouncing breasts
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 maintained jump rope pose
- 3/3 no noticeable difference in breast depiction compared to control — no bounce, deformation, or blur
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
A02: jiggling breasts
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 maintained jump rope pose
- 3/3 no difference from control in breast depiction
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
A03: breast motion blur
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 maintained jump rope pose
- 3/3 no difference from control — no motion blur effect on breasts
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
- No motion blur was observed anywhere in the image
A04: swaying breasts
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 maintained jump rope pose
- 3/3 no difference from control in breast depiction
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
A05: dynamic breast movement
| seed=42 | seed=123 | seed=789 |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Observations:
- 3/3 maintained jump rope pose
- 3/3 no difference from control in breast depiction
- 3/3 no anatomical breakdown
Side-by-Side Comparison (seed=42)
| Condition | seed=42 |
|---|---|
| A00: Control | ![]() |
| A01: bouncing breasts | ![]() |
| A02: jiggling breasts | ![]() |
| A03: breast motion blur | ![]() |
| A04: swaying breasts | ![]() |
| A05: dynamic breast movement | ![]() |
Summary
| Condition | Breast Motion | Pose Stability | Breakdown Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| A00: Control | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
| A01: bouncing breasts | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
| A02: jiggling breasts | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
| A03: breast motion blur | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
| A04: swaying breasts | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
| A05: dynamic breast movement | Static | 3/3 | 0/3 |
No difference in breast motion expression was observed across any condition. On the positive side, topless × jump rope pose stability proved extremely high — all 18 images across 6 conditions showed zero breakdowns.
Note: Expressing “bounce” in a still image requires shape deformation or blur, which can be close to what models treat as an artifact to avoid. This is speculative, but it may be one reason motion keywords are hard to reproduce. On the positive side, the topless × jump rope composition proved rock-solid stable, with zero breakdowns across all 18 shots.
Analysis
None of the breast motion keywords produced visible effects. Several factors likely contribute:
- Still image limitations: “Bouncing” and “jiggling” are temporal concepts that don’t translate well to single frames. Video generation models may produce different results
- Strong base composition: The topless + jumping rope combination already produces a stable, well-defined composition, potentially leaving little room for additional keyword influence
- Token efficiency: These keywords consume 2-3 tokens with no visible payoff — better spent on scene description or lighting
The topless jump rope composition itself is highly stable and practical. There’s no need to add breast motion keywords — topless, jumping rope alone delivers consistent results.
Note: Tokens spent on keywords with no visible effect are better spent on lighting or background description instead.



















![[Experiment] Dynamic Pose Comparison — How Far Can Running, Jumping, and Looking Back Go Without Distortion?](/tips/dynamic-pose-comparison/cover.webp)
![[Verified] Image Generation Prompt Best Practices](/tips/prompt-best-practices/cover_0_0000_4517457392071889496.webp)



