
Earlier some people moaned at me for posting too big an animated gif. I replied by moaning back about crap freeware whereas my actual response should have been to read the manual. I have done now, and have managed to make Botticelli's Venus say 'bum' a lot.

It's still probably too big though, tips on optimising palettes in the Gimp would be appreciated.
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:17,
archived)

It's still probably too big though, tips on optimising palettes in the Gimp would be appreciated.

bumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbu
mbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumb
umbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbum
bumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbu
mbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumb
umbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbum
bumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbu
mbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumb
umbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbum
bumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbu
mbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumb
umbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbumbum

I have a 150k woo yay!
Thats rather good animation though!
Edit: Ooops, sorry, that was the reduced one, the originals 240kb ^_^;
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:19,
archived)
Thats rather good animation though!
Edit: Ooops, sorry, that was the reduced one, the originals 240kb ^_^;

a 250K Woo Yay lurking in, it was my first try and rather over ambitious I seem to remember.
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:25,
archived)

so here it is

I don't think I've ever posted it before
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:27,
archived)

I don't think I've ever posted it before

I don't know how the gimp works, so I can't be specific, but if you can turn on transparency that may help (if it's not already on)... also, if it's already selected, deselecting "revert to background" after each frame...
I'm too lazy to load it and see how it's actually working. the main reason it's so big is the number of frames and the amount of movement in each one - doesn't matter that the areas are small, they cover a larger section of the whole picture so more data's needed to fill the gaps.
still, it's small enough, it's very smooth, it's rather funny - I'd call it a winner!
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:21,
archived)
I'm too lazy to load it and see how it's actually working. the main reason it's so big is the number of frames and the amount of movement in each one - doesn't matter that the areas are small, they cover a larger section of the whole picture so more data's needed to fill the gaps.
still, it's small enough, it's very smooth, it's rather funny - I'd call it a winner!

for sure. The thing I don't get is that there is movement around the background, away from the bits i distorted, even though dithering is turned off. Hmm. I'll carry on playing anyway.
( ,
Mon 3 Nov 2003, 19:25,
archived)