Topic awaiting preservation: test (Page 1 of 1)

testing

didn't work.

[This message has been edited by Moth (edited 10-14-2002).]

Testing also...

Cell 816

[Emp edit: changed curly bracket } to square one ] ]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 10-18-2002).]

Testing again...

Cell 816

Slow day, Gilbert?

testing...





[This message has been edited by Moth (edited 10-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Moth (edited 10-20-2002).]

Part V, in which our intrepid hero finds out if Image Ready is wiling to play nice.

I'm getting a bit of stuttering in the last imager here... is that the moon? With clouds passing by? If so, I would recommend a much slower animation. If not, just ignore me.

Suho1004, it is indeed clouds going over the moon. I see the stutter too. Not sure where it is occurring, so I am thinking about re-doing the animation. The original was at 19 frames. I am at 32 frames now. I will try a 50 frame to slow it even more.

... and here is a redone animation at 49 frames.

Is it my imagination or has a couple of my and Suho1004's posts disappeared. I distinctly remember Suho asking me if I skipped a frame and said something regarding a possible browser delay.

thats cute. good work!

seems pretty good. but one frame is
like a hick up

Yea, seems like one frame is missing or something.

Thanks for the input, guys. I re-did the animation and posted it slightly larger. Gif is approx. 42 k at 75 % reduction. 50% reduction resulted in a 22 k gif. There still appears to be a slight hiccup. The jump appears to be happening at the point where the last frame jumps back to the first. It is currently at 49 frames with a 2 pixel move of the base cloud layer per frame. The tile is 100 px by 100 px in the original. Now I know I should not have 50 frames because the first frame and last frame would end up matching causing a lag. Does anyone know if there is such a thing a too many frames for an animated gif and as a result be jerky when it reaches the last frame and jumps back to the first frame?

Uh, yeah, there do seem to have been some posts deleted here... what's up with that? A hiccup in the Asylum?

As for the stutter, I have an idea, but it's a long shot. Did you do this in IR? I know that when I did my sig for this month in IR (my first animation using the program), I was having this problem. I can't remember what exactly I screwed up, but I think I was selecting the layer to be shown and then clicking "new frame." But when you click new frame it makes a new frame based on whatever is currently showing, so when I hid the first layer and showed a new layer, I was in effect skipping the first layer. You're probably not as retarded as I am, but you might want to go back through the animation frame by frame and make sure they're all there.

Thanks for the tip. I will look through the frames to make sure that I did not skip the first layer. I had a thought that the stutter may be because I used a 100 x 100 pixel tile instead of a power of two 128 * 128 pixel tile. I will re-do the moving background layer. The biggest problem is that this will bring the frame count to 63. The animation has to be slow in order to work well.

If the 128 x 128 pixel tile works then I will have to resize it to 50% or less to keep it to a managable file size. Don't want to make everyone's browser to go boom.

Here is the redone sig with 63 frames. Let me know what you think.

Maybe it's my old eyes, but I think you tried too hard at making it tiny. The animation is nice and smooth now, but I want your name to be a bit larger. I'm squinting to see it. Maybe make the box a bit smaller and have the name break the borders in the bottom-right corner? That could be pretty.

______________________________
s t e p h e n

I like how you think twItch^. I'll give it a try.

Nice. I thought I would just test here also...



teamEarth ~~ Cell 816

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-23-2002).]

*hands twitch^ a spectacle*

yah I would also like to see it better.

                                     

Moth: looking smoother, but I've got to agree with the general consensus on the size of your name--and I'm not all that old yet (at least I don't think I'm all that old...).

GN: We generally don't post tests in other people's test threads... it's kind of like trying to steal the spotlight.

So the general consensus it that my name needs to be larger? Or is it the entire sig that needs to be bigger? If I enlarge the sig what would people consider an acceptable file size?

with all these 'cloud' sigs, i've noticed something.
in my opinion, the transparent bit should be the actual cloud bit - the shapes that it forms seems to be clouds, not the gaps between the clouds.
....but i could be wrong.
am i making sense?

I am not 100% sure I am following you reitsma. I am trying to keep the clouds transparent with some whispy cloud movement across the moon. The bright part is the radiance from the moon not a cloud.