We must have had rattlesnakes? Geddit? I haven't seen any yet, but surely ...

(the_whore_of_mensa You like it so much, I make it a part of you!, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:01, archived)

Pfft!

( Pedantichrist http://lordmanley.co.uk/gas/, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:02, archived)

hahaha
quick tip: if you want your animations to takes less space, make sure things (like the edges, and body parts) that shouldn't move, don't move about from one frame to the next.
( but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all is out of sig, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:04, archived)

That's a good point.
It means the gif can just say "keep this bit the same" rather than having to describe the whole image again.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:05, archived)

Although they need to be the same layer.
Two identical layers are likely to be as big as two different ones, assuming the same colours.
( Pedantichrist http://lordmanley.co.uk/gas/, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:11, archived)

How strange.

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:15, archived)

in the resulting GIF you only have one layer per frame.
any decent gif animation package should optimize that no matter how things were arranged in the source files.

worst case scenario, assuming your gif writing software doesn't work like that: just run the gif through GIMP's "optimize for gif" or gifsicle or something like that.
( but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all is out of sig, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:22, archived)

this is all
unusually constructive, peeps. cheers
(the_whore_of_mensa You like it so much, I make it a part of you!, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:25, archived)

in the gif,
when saved, all the stuff that remains the same per frame is discarded after the first frame that uses it.
( Pasanonic WARNING - May induce flouncing., Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:25, archived)

Indeed,
but I find that images which are the same do not optimise as well as if you delete all the same bits from the subsequent layers and have a transparency through to the base layer.

I am not wording this well, bear with me.
( Pedantichrist http://lordmanley.co.uk/gas/, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:29, archived)

IF the resulting pixels are exactly the same, it shouldn't matter
but when you're working with many "same" layers it's pretty easy to much up somewhere and I do sometimes do what you're describing here (I think) to make it easier on myself.
( but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all is out of sig, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:39, archived)

Yes, I have experimented with two versions of this:


I was wrong.
( Pedantichrist http://lordmanley.co.uk/gas/, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 21:22, archived)

Yeah
it was a bit rushed. just imagine they're on a boat
(the_whore_of_mensa You like it so much, I make it a part of you!, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:11, archived)

/imagines
:)
( but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all is out of sig, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:22, archived)

Top composing.
Woo
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:04, archived)

i'll name that tune in one...
(Finlandia by Ssssssibelius?)
(sonofabun shaving hedgehogs since 1973, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:05, archived)

Why are they on a boat?

( Pedantichrist http://lordmanley.co.uk/gas/, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:13, archived)

they're not
what about an earthquake instead?
(the_whore_of_mensa You like it so much, I make it a part of you!, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:14, archived)