 
Tiger Video/Cow Video from 1999 now turned into animated GIFs. (hey, are they actually moving on anyone else's end?)
I got inspired by (or jealous of) certain works by Sally McKay and Tom Moody, (and the anonymous Jane-Campion-Fleeing-Romance-Truck) so I thought I'd try out Easy GIF Animator and convert some of my old director animations that had originally been exhibited as videos.
I can't get them running fast enough unless I sacrifice more frames, so I'm not sure how to optimize the files without loosing more frames, or if I'm even using a good GIF animator, or if I am just way off base with the type of images I am trying to animate.
The on-line work I do like is starting to make more sense, (choices always get made within the limits of any technology and the best of anything always looks like it was made that way on purpose.)
Unsolicited critique:
1. The cow gif is my favorite--it appears to be turning on a vertical axis while still comfortably inhabiting the flattish browser "picture plane."
2. The tiger is more recessed in space and looks like it might refer to a pre-existing work, whereas the cow is immediate and "now" and seems made for the web.
3. Having said all that, 225 KB is still large for me. We used to have a rule of thumb limit of 50 KB for any image here at the Tree (for storage reasons) and I'm sure Jim would appreciate it if we keep images reasonably sized. Believe it or not, I still try to keep GIFs in that range, even animated ones. My upward limit is about 150--for something really special. Anything bigger I link to an outside page. Obviously those "gif grids" I'm doing use more bandwidth, but with small gifs it doesn't seem to affect the loading.
Partly this is my own idiosyncrasy--I want my page accessible to as many viewers as possible--including dial-up. But I've gotten interesting results from compressing things down to 16 colors and using as few frames as possible. I think it makes the art as medium-specific as possible--In this case a medium where content is quick and punchy and acknowledges the space of the browser in some way.
Sorry to lecture but I think about this stuff all the time and it just spills out.
I broke my own rule and posted that "remix" on my page--since it was already on the system and all.
The critique was totally solicited Tom, this is stuff I wanted to find out about.
About the actual file size, I was basing it on some of Sally's past animations as guide for size limits. (Tree pig was 221) But you are right about your own animations, they are much smaller. One thing I don't understand yet is performance issues around this type of delivery. (the grid of cows that you made seems to run nicely, so is the only issue here bandwidth for the server and the end user?)
You are also right about the flatness, the cow works much better in this new context.
I'll try 16 colours, since that's a big part of the aesthetic that I am enjoying with much web work.
"I think it makes the art as medium-specific as possible--In this case a medium where content is quick and punchy and acknowledges the space of the browser in some way."
I have no argument with that statement, I'm alluding to it when I talk about things looking the best when they are made that way on purpose. One thing I dislike about Flash is the preloaders, so the immediacy of animated GIFs is a selling point for me too.
b/t/w totally flattered by the remix, thanks
Yes, ouch, I realize I was repeating what you said with that quote. Let's just say I was emphasizing the point as opposed to being totally obtuse.
>>One thing I don't understand yet is performance issues around this type of delivery. (the grid of cows that you made seems to run nicely, so is the only issue here bandwidth for the server and the end user?)
I really don't know. I've never understood if scaling up a GIF by 200% in html turns a 10 KB GIF into a 20 KB GIF, or if repeating a 10 KB GIF 8 times makes it an 80 KB GIF. Jim? Mark? I rarely notice any change in load time--but then I don't have dial-up anymore so I can't test. The animated GIF compilations I've seen include ones as high as 5 MB and it doesn't seem to bother a high-speed connection user. I just won't go there.
Looks gorgeous!
Technically, what's weird is that sometimes the larger cow GIF loads before the smaller Tiger GIF on my machine, I understand the difference between file size and bandwidth from my CDR production days (never could get the project managers to understand it though) My confusion stems from not fully grasping how perhaps colour choices or animation speeds may effect the performance. In the GIF animator, I was setting the 'pause' to 1/100ths, and of course it never reaches that speed.
From past experience with setting speed for Flash kid's games, I did discover that setting a high movie speed caused the program to waste too much processing power trying to attain the speed, and resulted in major code bugs. I wonder if I pay a price with the GIF animator as well.
My experience with the program I'm using is 10 frames per second is about all Internet Explorer can handle. If you set it for 20 frames Firefox plays it faster but it IE slows it down to 10. If you specify over 20 frames, Firefox plays it at 20 and IE plays it a 10. There doesn't seem to be a penalty for setting it higher than the browser can play--in other words, it doesn't tax itself trying to play above its level. Can't speak for Mac and/or Safari.
Also, there's no rhyme or reason to what loads first--it's just Internet randomness.
And I don't think speed has anything to do with bandwidth--just size of the image, number of frames, etc. Your browser does all the mechanics of playback.
Are there any GIF animators that give info on bandwidth, similar to the compression info you can get from a QuickTime? I remember there being no rhyme or reason to video codecs, we just had to rely on tons of tests to balance image quality with performance.
you're all missing the point! Director is live and well. Post them as shockwaves! forget this pewney gif crap.
(I'm ducking right now so as to avoid the onslaught)
Sad, deluded joester, I've been kidnapped joined a community that worships Satan! Lucifer! Mephistopheles! Beelzebub! Modernistic stuff! the Dancing Banana GIF.
Come to one of our Vegetarian dinners and give us all your money see for yourself how happy I am now.
Verily, it is a cult of the pewney and infignifickant. (Joester's been dipping in the Neal Stephenson again.)
I AM reading a biography of Alan Turing, and "Invader" by C.J. Cherryh - both are excellent.
I have 3 shelves of CJ Cherryh. I think she cons me into thinking that she is very profound. I am currently rereading Fortress of Owls, have reread chanur many times, and the faded suns series. Cyteen too. I am still not sure if she is being mysterious, or too lazy to explain
I just bought Downbelow Station and Cyteen. Haven't started either.
|
Tiger Video/Cow Video from 1999 now turned into animated GIFs. (hey, are they actually moving on anyone else's end?)
I got inspired by (or jealous of) certain works by Sally McKay and Tom Moody, (and the anonymous Jane-Campion-Fleeing-Romance-Truck) so I thought I'd try out Easy GIF Animator and convert some of my old director animations that had originally been exhibited as videos.
I can't get them running fast enough unless I sacrifice more frames, so I'm not sure how to optimize the files without loosing more frames, or if I'm even using a good GIF animator, or if I am just way off base with the type of images I am trying to animate.
The on-line work I do like is starting to make more sense, (choices always get made within the limits of any technology and the best of anything always looks like it was made that way on purpose.)
- L.M. 8-16-2006 9:29 pm
Unsolicited critique:
1. The cow gif is my favorite--it appears to be turning on a vertical axis while still comfortably inhabiting the flattish browser "picture plane."
2. The tiger is more recessed in space and looks like it might refer to a pre-existing work, whereas the cow is immediate and "now" and seems made for the web.
3. Having said all that, 225 KB is still large for me. We used to have a rule of thumb limit of 50 KB for any image here at the Tree (for storage reasons) and I'm sure Jim would appreciate it if we keep images reasonably sized. Believe it or not, I still try to keep GIFs in that range, even animated ones. My upward limit is about 150--for something really special. Anything bigger I link to an outside page. Obviously those "gif grids" I'm doing use more bandwidth, but with small gifs it doesn't seem to affect the loading.
Partly this is my own idiosyncrasy--I want my page accessible to as many viewers as possible--including dial-up. But I've gotten interesting results from compressing things down to 16 colors and using as few frames as possible. I think it makes the art as medium-specific as possible--In this case a medium where content is quick and punchy and acknowledges the space of the browser in some way.
Sorry to lecture but I think about this stuff all the time and it just spills out.
- tom moody 8-16-2006 10:04 pm
- tom moody 8-16-2006 10:09 pm
I broke my own rule and posted that "remix" on my page--since it was already on the system and all.
- tom moody 8-16-2006 10:19 pm
The critique was totally solicited Tom, this is stuff I wanted to find out about.
About the actual file size, I was basing it on some of Sally's past animations as guide for size limits. (Tree pig was 221) But you are right about your own animations, they are much smaller. One thing I don't understand yet is performance issues around this type of delivery. (the grid of cows that you made seems to run nicely, so is the only issue here bandwidth for the server and the end user?)
You are also right about the flatness, the cow works much better in this new context.
I'll try 16 colours, since that's a big part of the aesthetic that I am enjoying with much web work.
"I think it makes the art as medium-specific as possible--In this case a medium where content is quick and punchy and acknowledges the space of the browser in some way."
I have no argument with that statement, I'm alluding to it when I talk about things looking the best when they are made that way on purpose. One thing I dislike about Flash is the preloaders, so the immediacy of animated GIFs is a selling point for me too.
b/t/w totally flattered by the remix, thanks
- L.M. 8-16-2006 10:32 pm
Yes, ouch, I realize I was repeating what you said with that quote. Let's just say I was emphasizing the point as opposed to being totally obtuse.
>>One thing I don't understand yet is performance issues around this type of delivery. (the grid of cows that you made seems to run nicely, so is the only issue here bandwidth for the server and the end user?)
I really don't know. I've never understood if scaling up a GIF by 200% in html turns a 10 KB GIF into a 20 KB GIF, or if repeating a 10 KB GIF 8 times makes it an 80 KB GIF. Jim? Mark? I rarely notice any change in load time--but then I don't have dial-up anymore so I can't test. The animated GIF compilations I've seen include ones as high as 5 MB and it doesn't seem to bother a high-speed connection user. I just won't go there.
- tom moody 8-16-2006 11:35 pm
Looks gorgeous!
- K/W (guest) 8-16-2006 11:36 pm
Technically, what's weird is that sometimes the larger cow GIF loads before the smaller Tiger GIF on my machine, I understand the difference between file size and bandwidth from my CDR production days (never could get the project managers to understand it though) My confusion stems from not fully grasping how perhaps colour choices or animation speeds may effect the performance. In the GIF animator, I was setting the 'pause' to 1/100ths, and of course it never reaches that speed.
From past experience with setting speed for Flash kid's games, I did discover that setting a high movie speed caused the program to waste too much processing power trying to attain the speed, and resulted in major code bugs. I wonder if I pay a price with the GIF animator as well.
- L.M. 8-16-2006 11:56 pm
My experience with the program I'm using is 10 frames per second is about all Internet Explorer can handle. If you set it for 20 frames Firefox plays it faster but it IE slows it down to 10. If you specify over 20 frames, Firefox plays it at 20 and IE plays it a 10. There doesn't seem to be a penalty for setting it higher than the browser can play--in other words, it doesn't tax itself trying to play above its level. Can't speak for Mac and/or Safari.
- tom moody 8-17-2006 12:22 am
Also, there's no rhyme or reason to what loads first--it's just Internet randomness.
- tom moody 8-17-2006 12:24 am
And I don't think speed has anything to do with bandwidth--just size of the image, number of frames, etc. Your browser does all the mechanics of playback.
- tom moody 8-17-2006 12:26 am
Are there any GIF animators that give info on bandwidth, similar to the compression info you can get from a QuickTime? I remember there being no rhyme or reason to video codecs, we just had to rely on tons of tests to balance image quality with performance.
- L.M. 8-17-2006 12:31 am
you're all missing the point! Director is live and well. Post them as shockwaves! forget this pewney gif crap.
(I'm ducking right now so as to avoid the onslaught)
- joester 8-17-2006 1:25 am
Sad, deluded joester, I've
been kidnappedjoined a community that worshipsSatan! Lucifer! Mephistopheles! Beelzebub! Modernistic stuff!the Dancing Banana GIF.Come to one of our Vegetarian dinners and
give us all your moneysee for yourself how happy I am now.- L.M. 8-17-2006 2:15 am
Verily, it is a cult of the pewney and infignifickant. (Joester's been dipping in the Neal Stephenson again.)
- tom moody 8-17-2006 5:37 am
I AM reading a biography of Alan Turing, and "Invader" by C.J. Cherryh - both are excellent.
- joester 8-17-2006 7:14 am
- joester 8-17-2006 7:18 am
I have 3 shelves of CJ Cherryh. I think she cons me into thinking that she is very profound. I am currently rereading Fortress of Owls, have reread chanur many times, and the faded suns series. Cyteen too. I am still not sure if she is being mysterious, or too lazy to explain
- galenagalaxian 8-17-2006 7:28 am
I just bought Downbelow Station and Cyteen. Haven't started either.
- tom moody 8-17-2006 7:33 am