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)