Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Gif Animation Questions

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I can make that T2 gif with the same quality under 500 k. It's merely an example. And making vids is defeating the original purpose of making a gif.

    Here's your gif, johhny. I made it like an avatar, and it loops the way you requested it in your original thread. What you are asking for is a reverse looping gif. If you want it bigger, smaller, closeup, distant, effects, faster, slower etc etc., let me know here. The splurging effect in the background can't be avoided due to the poor quailty of the original clip and the colors dont help much in that regard, either. I also culled the overall animation. Somethign I don't usually do with my gifs.

    Last edited by Kratos; 09-29-2007 at 03:11 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    And making vids is defeating the original purpose of making a gif.
    It is... and it isn't.
    A gif is supposed to be a small animation that can easily be embedded on a page. It's not really designed for movies.
    I doubt you can get the same quality at 500k, as that is simply what a gif does.... it saves lossless data at 256 colors (so far from visually "lossless"), or less colors if you decide. Less colors will look worse and so would fewer frames or resolution. If you can, I'm interested, though.

    It's a pain to embed a video on a page. Perhaps the gif format should be better, or animated pngs will catch on and be better, but there's just a limit.

    2.8mb is just WAY too much data for inline content that isn't some sort of media that allows buffering, etc.

    500k is also pushing it, though on the edge. Perhaps better than embedding.

    gifs are convenient, but it is, sadly, a fairly ugly format for a number of reasons.

    None of this is your fault, certainly. Just unfortunate.

    Using Sorenson 3, an old but compatible codec (there are much better ones now), here's a 228kb version of that same clip. If you look close enough you can see some artifacting. No one would ever notice, though.
    http://ci-pro.com/misc/11905383862.mov
    (It was flawless at around 800k, though I wanted to make it smaller. Probably would be nearly flawless at 400k, too.)


    Meh. I wish there was a better way. Seems that is sorta flash... but flash is terribly inconvenient to use.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| español | Deutsch | italiano | português | català | un peu de français | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    wow.... you actually made it, if you were here i would give you five bucks, haha. but, since i cant, i just thanked you.

    i have no idea how you did that. how long did it take you?
    My Web Site
    Japan Town

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    83
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    never mine

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •