
I didn't make it, I just made it little enough for you not to kill me.
Clickie for bigger, smoother (687Kb)
God edit: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Hello new person. Please read our FAQ. Cheers.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:24,
archived)
Clickie for bigger, smoother (687Kb)
God edit: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Hello new person. Please read our FAQ. Cheers.

It's public domain
Wasn't sure whether to put it here or links, really.
Pretty tho, eh?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:26,
archived)
Wasn't sure whether to put it here or links, really.
Pretty tho, eh?

that's far worse than making something too big
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:25,
archived)

I mean, it's very nice and all that, but if you didn't make it....?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:26,
archived)

...for me to forget that you didn't make it.
...but not quite!
Hamtoucher.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:26,
archived)
...but not quite!
Hamtoucher.

*peas*

and

( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:27,
archived)

and


DAMN HIM AND HIS BLIND TITS!
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:29,
archived)


That's even cuter than the ducklings I saw earlier. I may have to stare at that for hours now.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:32,
archived)

this is why it only gets an airing every now and then. The cuteness may end all life as we know it.
And I wouldn't want that.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:35,
archived)
And I wouldn't want that.

The world would grind to a halt if that was the first thing everyone saw every day :D
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:38,
archived)

I'm not new;
What's the beef? The original image is public domain, the licence is here.
I took out every other frame, resized it, and otherwise manipulated it to be suitable for here.
What'd I do wrong?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:31,
archived)
What's the beef? The original image is public domain, the licence is here.
I took out every other frame, resized it, and otherwise manipulated it to be suitable for here.
What'd I do wrong?

This is something which someone else has made and you have linked to (albeit edited it to make it smaller). So it's better to put it on the links page so that someone elses hard work isn't pushed off the board.
If you had edited it and put a CDC in the middle of it then it would be right at home on /board.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:34,
archived)
If you had edited it and put a CDC in the middle of it then it would be right at home on /board.

But please don't be arsey, everyone. I really don't see much difference - if I recolour it and make it spin backwards, it 'becomes' my own work more than the optimisation I did?
It's no more of a source than the brushes you use in Photoshop.
/rant
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:37,
archived)
It's no more of a source than the brushes you use in Photoshop.
/rant

and it pushes someones own work off the board. we like original here, its just the way we are. if you edit it and make it your own, fine but edit it to really make it your own by enhancing it with dancing tigers and flaming penguins, then you will woo'd and lovedup like a choir boy with a priest
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:42,
archived)

Make it change into triangles, or I agree with the flaming penguins idea - but just changing the colour still doesn't make it YOURS.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:47,
archived)

a moderator modded a thread - i thought moderators were a things of legend and not real, like unicorns and endless curlywurlies.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:50,
archived)

I have seen things well over a meg go completely unpoliced. This was at least a fairly minor sin
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:57,
archived)

spin it backwards and put a kitten inside running to try and get out
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:50,
archived)

Links would have been a much better choice
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:35,
archived)

Resizing does not normally constitute your own work...
Never mind, I enjoyed seeing the image. Have a pearoast from yesterday to cheer you up

( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:35,
archived)
Never mind, I enjoyed seeing the image. Have a pearoast from yesterday to cheer you up


This has added lipstick and frowning face since yesterday, hasn't it?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:37,
archived)

but the frowning face was a late addition, yes :)
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:38,
archived)

It's OK to nick a picture, crop it, and TOAST it - but not OK to spend an hour optimising a GIF?
Arsecakes.
/rant
Have some nice eyes

( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:47,
archived)
Arsecakes.
/rant
Have some nice eyes


Then we're not generally a massive fan of those either, but at least it does actually change the base image. Optimising doesn't make any difference to the original work.
The eyes are lovely - but we have to ask, did you do them?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 16:54,
archived)
The eyes are lovely - but we have to ask, did you do them?

They're the eyes of actress Aishwarya Rai, and she's not my daughter.
Nor did I take the Original picture that I used.
In fact, that picture could well be copyright.
I understand what you mean about 'originality', but it's a pretty damn fine line, don't you think?
I suppose most folk will be happy with the eyes, but not the box. Strange morals.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:05,
archived)
Nor did I take the Original picture that I used.
In fact, that picture could well be copyright.
I understand what you mean about 'originality', but it's a pretty damn fine line, don't you think?
I suppose most folk will be happy with the eyes, but not the box. Strange morals.

And I notice there's 2 unshopped pics of fish on this page, that seem satisfactory?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:08,
archived)

The eyes aren't so much of a problem - you've got to get a source from somewhere! I think the fact that all you did to the box was change the filesize (I know there's more to it than that, but essentially that's it) is what's annoyed people. If you'd posted to the links board saying 'look at the cool box thing I found', nobody would have batted an eyelid. (actually, they might have kicked up an enormous stink, I've no idea, I don't frequent links)
Agreed it's a fine line, and please don't think we're picking on you or anything, just trying to explain why box thing = bad, eyes = good :)
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:15,
archived)
Agreed it's a fine line, and please don't think we're picking on you or anything, just trying to explain why box thing = bad, eyes = good :)

...between the work I did on the eyes, and the work I did on the box
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:21,
archived)

applied some filters, cropped bits out, made layers, re-coloured them, applied effects - that sort of thing.
Whereas, on the box, I converted the filetype, removed every other frame, resized the frames, ran a couple of optimization processes - that sort of thing.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:28,
archived)
Whereas, on the box, I converted the filetype, removed every other frame, resized the frames, ran a couple of optimization processes - that sort of thing.

Let me start by saying I know absolutely bugger all about animation, but...
With the eyes, you've done arty type things to change the overall look of the image. With the box, you've not actually changed what the original file did: yes it may have fewer frames and be smaller, but the hour you put into it is probably nothing compared to how long it took the original author to have the idea and execute it.
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:35,
archived)
With the eyes, you've done arty type things to change the overall look of the image. With the box, you've not actually changed what the original file did: yes it may have fewer frames and be smaller, but the hour you put into it is probably nothing compared to how long it took the original author to have the idea and execute it.

If the box had been inside a thread , it would be OK especially as you aknowledged it wasn't your own
But there was insufficent of your own creative input to warrant it starting a new thread
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:46,
archived)
But there was insufficent of your own creative input to warrant it starting a new thread

And more succinctly
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:48,
archived)

That's a different matter entirely - thanks for that. I hope that's the fact, because the other reasons seem completely daft to me.
(Sorry Mrs Trellis, not meaning to offend - but if you look at the logic; think of the team of people and effort that went into creating the photo I used - whereas the box is a geometric shape that anyone can calculate; it's not significantly different from drawing a circle.
And..well, lots of other stuff, but I guess we have to agree to disagree.
It all depends what you call art.

Oh - I suppose I could bung my box back in somewhere then? But I'd rather put it in a thread nearer the top or something...but will that incur further wrath?
( ,
Fri 4 Jul 2008, 17:59,
archived)
(Sorry Mrs Trellis, not meaning to offend - but if you look at the logic; think of the team of people and effort that went into creating the photo I used - whereas the box is a geometric shape that anyone can calculate; it's not significantly different from drawing a circle.
And..well, lots of other stuff, but I guess we have to agree to disagree.
It all depends what you call art.

Oh - I suppose I could bung my box back in somewhere then? But I'd rather put it in a thread nearer the top or something...but will that incur further wrath?