Woo!*peas*
(
Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:42,
archived)
Hahaha.Fucking yes!
(
Quijibo Esq. BSc. May contain traces of nuts,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:43,
archived)
coo, thanksThat's better response than I got the first time!
How can I make an animation much smaller? I am still having trouble after upping lossyness to 100%, using scan lines and resizing to 280pix. It's about 270k now, and looks terrible.
(How can I make an animation much smaller? I am still having trouble after upping lossyness to 100%, using scan lines and resizing to 280pix. It's about 270k now, and looks terrible.
Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:47,
archived)
post a still or the crappy version (maybe shortened version)with a link to the goodun?
(
Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:49,
archived)
Yeah, I was going to do that anyway.But it loses it's meaning and niceness without the animation.
( Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:51,
archived)
have you tried deleting every second frame and doubling the duration of each frame?or making it a little smaller?
using less colours?
(you should only have to use about 20% lossy, otherwise it just looks horrible)
(using less colours?
(you should only have to use about 20% lossy, otherwise it just looks horrible)
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:50,
archived)
Deleting every 2nd frame would make it much worse,it's only about 50-60 frames as is, and a little jumpy as such. And there aren't many colours in it either. Creating animations in CS3 is not fun. :( Thanks though.
( Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:53,
archived)
50-60 frames is quite a lot. Quijibo Esq. BSc. May contain traces of nuts,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:54,
archived)
It's okIt would have helped if I'd been using the right file, and if Photoshop hadn't decided to undo the image resize. Immense stupidity = fail.
( Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:59,
archived)
that's your problem thenas DTH says, maybe post a shorter version, with a link to the larger file size version.
with 50-60 frames, there little chance of getting the file size down if the gif is 280 pix.
If you want it to be 280, then make it about, say, 240 pix, then you can blow it up using html by putting width=280 after the url...
The quickest way to reduce filesize is to remove frames really, but it does mean you lose a bit of smoothness.
(with 50-60 frames, there little chance of getting the file size down if the gif is 280 pix.
If you want it to be 280, then make it about, say, 240 pix, then you can blow it up using html by putting width=280 after the url...
The quickest way to reduce filesize is to remove frames really, but it does mean you lose a bit of smoothness.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:58,
archived)
ThanksBut as you can see, I've been a div. I've got a nice 260k ish file now, and I'll link to the original.
( Awesome Welles petitioning for foetuses to be rebranded 'wombles',
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 21:01,
archived)
Now this one I will deffinately colour in.It may not be tonight though...
( Quijibo Esq. BSc. May contain traces of nuts,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:42,
archived)
excellentit looks as if you're trying to make it fucking difficult for people to colour your stuff :D
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:42,
archived)
:DeLowrean Rider !
Valin I changed glasses while I wasn't looking,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:43,
archived)
You made a great pic.... out of a De Lorian?:)
( The Twisted Omentum vidi vici veni,
Thu 21 Aug 2008, 20:51,
archived)