b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 8046912 (Thread)

# 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.
(, 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.
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:11, archived)
# How strange.
(, 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.
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:22, archived)
# this is all
unusually constructive, peeps. cheers
(, 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.
(, 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.
(, 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.
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:39, archived)
# Yes, I have experimented with two versions of this:


I was wrong.
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 21:22, archived)
# Yeah
it was a bit rushed. just imagine they're on a boat
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:11, archived)
# /imagines
:)
(, Sun 10 Feb 2008, 20:22, archived)