My first animation! (82K image)

[Bob Todd]

Teh kittyfluff! Teh kittyfluff!

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QAAeA3ETeHpQMHPmTvnpX45LrUKRqoSw0h3XxasPdlMSucym7 bgoLqh6LWtSjxrclmLibD!0T90A0yMpVH1z6lAi*C4GK*ZLzow eAwBw2hY/kitten.gif

I just got Micro$hit GIF animatisorator, and it's woo! I can set different durations for each frame, instead of having to make duplicate frames if I want a longer delay (which is what you have to do in UnFREEz; it's v. no-frills). And I can now do transparencies if I so choose.

This still took far too long to make for what it is, but I had such fun (I even forwent watching Brainiac so I could finish it) that I don't mind.

[Mobius]

LL OO LL !!!!
LL OO OO LL !!!!
LL OO OO LL
LLLLLLL OO LLLLLLLL !!!!

(sorry felt like doing that)

in the words of Griff from ssx3.... That was fun in a kinda twisted way.

what about a flash conversion or something - it would reduce the file size wouldn't it?

-g-

[Bob Todd]

Anna can't do Flash. :(

[Lance]

.
Anna, please remember that our policy on posting images is that unless they take only a few seconds to load for a dial-up user, provide a link to the image rather than posting it directly to the forum. this one you've posted is not too large in terms of how much visual space it takes on the page, but is perhaps 4 times too many kilobytes.

thanks for letting us know about the time-stretching without extra frames feature. interesting, even if it is an MS product
.

[infoxicated]

Lance, I had already edited Anna's topic title to indicate that it contained a large image. Thought that might be enough of a deterrent to those who wish to avoid large files in the first place.

[Mobius]

Anna said


Anna can't do Flash :(

i can...kinda... what is the framerate is it so i can convert it properly?

[Lance]

.
Rob, for those who have images switched on, wouldn't it already be too late by the time they could read the subject title? it would depend on which browser they use, of course. as far as i know, there's only one of the major browsers that can switch them off quickly and also shows text first so one would see the subject title in time to do it, if the user were looking at the titles. and that browser only has a very small percentage of the total user base.

users who are sensitive to this issue may already browse with images off, so that the point would be moot in that case. this is one of those issues that seems difficult to pin down in an exact unambivalent way. perhaps other considerations, such as aesthetics, would also come into play?
[my own view is that the pages look best with just the WZ banner and the avatars, which not only looks good, it promotes focus on what our members actually say, on the text.]

{end of questions/essay}
.

[Rapier Racer]

are we talking about the image at the top of this page? I have dial up and it loaded instantly I don't see the problem, are you running a 28k connection or something?

[Lance]

.
talking about ''Bob Todd''s animation. the first frame loads right away on dial-up, but getting all the frames can take awhile. if one sets the browser to not run animated gifs, well, i don't know if it loads all frames, but it shows only the first one if i freeze gifs with Opera.

my connection is supposedly 56kbps, but that isn't the point. we don't know what connections all the members have. i've run across people on another forum who only have 28, and i've even seen one admit to only 14.4, being stuck with that for a few months in a situation he could do nothing about. [btw, he was an adult, not a child whose parents said no].
you just never know
.

[infoxicated]

Well, not really... if you're reading the list of topics in the General Discussion forum, it has My first animation! (82K image) as the topic title. I thought that was explanatory enough...? :?

[Lance]

.
i don't go to individual forums; i use the view new posts option and just go click on newest post . that's all i look for, the newest post icon, or if i have images switched off, the newest post alt text, but naturally in that case the size of the image doesn't matter. it's a good idea to put an image size warning in the subject line, but that doesn't mean it will be read. maybe i should slow down? ;)
if such warnings were made consistently, perhaps i would establish the habit to look long enough at the subject for it to sink in. this being the first time it happened, i didn't even think of such a thing. as i said in a previous post, though, people who have such slow connections may always surf with images off, and only select individual images to load when they see one that might be interesting enough to warrant the load time; so perhaps none of it really matters and we don't even need a subject line warning? then it would come down to aesthetic reasons only
.

[Gonaka]

everybody begins somewhere lol i remeber when i made my first animation with animation shop 2 lol it too was incredibly gory and violent! lol funny that :lol:

[Lance]

.
Itchy and Scratchy have a lot to answer for. :)
.

[Mobius]

go to www.icantcolouin.co.uk - gore with matchstikc men!

[Gonaka]

lol he means www.icantcolourin.co.uk

[Mobius]

mabey i should make a website called www.icantspell.co.uk

[Shem]

you're late mobius.

that link actually works... :lol:

Edit - what are the odds of that....

[Mobius]

doh - oh well.. i have my own website anyway...

www.odgie.co.uk


Hey hEy free advertising!!!!

[Bob Todd]

Ooo, your 100th post. How special do you feel?

[Rapier Racer]

.i've run across people on another forum who only have 28, and i've even seen one admit to only 14.4, being stuck with that for a few months in a situation he could do nothing about.

I take it they pay less then what you would for a 56k connection? I wasen't aware any ISP still offered anything below 56k unless it's just the modem

[Lance]

.
occasionally it may be the connection, but also can be the unavoidable use of an old machine. in any case, size of payment and speed of connection are only loosely related; but i don't know what those people pay. bottom price with special offers for a one year advance contract are sometimes available at 6.5 U.S. dollars per month for 56k, but it could cost as much as 23.90 on a no-contract, by the month payement for a connection from a solidly reliable and honest company also for 56k. believe it or not, having experienced service from the 6.50 guys and the 23.90 guys, i say the 23.90 is worth it if you can afford it. the cheap one is a totally underhanded sneaky exploitative company.
but i digress
.

[Rapier Racer]

oh i thought size of payment and speed were closely related becasue in most cases the faster your broadband is the more you pay, isn't that right?

[Mobius]

Bob Todd said:

Ooo, your 100th post. How special do you feel?

I never noticed! :?
:lol:

[Lance]

oh i thought size of payment and speed were closely related becasue in most cases the faster your broadband is the more you pay, isn't that right?
mmm... no

at least, not in the U.S.
for example, there is a service here called Brighthouse that took over the Time-Warner Cable business. they started offering what they call eCable internet connection [which may be ethernet; i'm not sure] for an introductory cost of thirty dollars per month for the first six months, after which you would pay the regular cost of forty dollars per month. installation of the cables and modem is free, as is the modem itself. this ''eCable'' is supposed to be radically faster than DSL or standard cable for internet. a friend of mine had this briefly and while he did, i played with it. one of the things i did was to download the time-limited trial version of PhotoShop CS. 150 megabytes in 15 minutes. and this was not the fastest rate achieved by the ''eCable'' connection. depends on the server connection and how busy it is. a couple of other downloads i did were about 35 percent faster in rate than that one, more than 200 kilobytes per second. 500-kilobyte images downloaded from fantasy artist Frank Frazetta's site were complete in about 2 seconds. compare this performance and cost to standard cable or DSL, both of which tend to cost thirty to forty dollars per month for unlimited use, though ''eCable'' may force the competition to reduce prices to stay alive. at this point,the relationship of cost to performance of internet connections in the U.S. is very loose indeed.
.

[Rapier Racer]

ah well what i meant was thet you can get say a 5x faster than dial up broadband connection, which costs you more than the dial up then if you wanted a 10x faster connection you'd pay more again, then theres 1mbps and so on the cost keeps rising

[Lance]

.
not to be deliberately waspish, but i believe i just said that isn't true here. you sometimes get noticeably less or more than what you pay for. sometimes services of the same cost are markedly different in bandwidth. in the case of Brighthouse vs. typical, the cost for far more bandwidth is not any greater than the lower-bandwidth service.
.

[Rapier Racer]

typical britian :roll:

[Lance]

.
?
''britian''? Britain? Briton? i don't know what you mean
.

[Rapier Racer]

means we get ripped off! constantly, unless you buy stuff from amazon of course

[Lance]

.
i was wondering what Britain had to do with it, since i don't live there. so you have the same situation there as we have here, then? probably the same world-wide
.