>   Firstly, if you want to put gifs in your www page you'll have to pay
quite
> a lot of money to unisys (at least if you live in one of those countries).

I live in the US.  I can place GIF images on my web page if they are
produced with a licensed program.  I have since learned that Corel is
available for Linux/GNU. $199US.


>   Secondly, 256-color animations are quite restricted. Of course there are
> some things (like really flat cartoon animations) where 256 colors is
enough,
> but usually it isn't (eg. if you make a rendered animation with povray).
> Rendered animations converted to gif usually look like crap.
>   GIF doesn't support sound either.

Sometimes "enough" is enough.

> : GIF, by the way, for some types of work, actually seems the SUPERIOR
format,
> : at least compared to JPG.
>
>   Now you are comparing gif with an image format which doesn't support
> animation.

And of the image protocols you tested below, which support animation?

>   GIF is certainly crap compared to JPG or PNG (the choice between the two
> depends on the type of image). With most images JPG, although lossy, gives
> a very good quality with laughably small file sizes (specially when
> compressing with the right parameter to avoid artifacts).
>
>   I made a test to compare file sizes with the skyvase image (at 640x480)
> in the standard povray distribution:
>
> skyvase.gif      114 979
> skyvase.jpg       57 453
> skyvase.png      197 256
> skyvase256.png    96 988

Never said I intended to use GIF for skyvase-type material.  Your results
correspond well with my own experiences.   Now try the same tests on line
art or cartoons and let me know which is "crap."  Then animate portions of a
composite image and let me know how many will move.

> : When PNG becomes universal
>
>   In which world do you live? What makes you think that png is not
> "universal"?

I also said "(and animated)."    I'm sure you noticed.

Otherwise intelligent people often feel compelled to turn otherwise
informative newsgroups into forums for condescending guruism and snotty
hostility.   If your motive is simply to be helpful, I suggest that you
presume less and see if you are up to the challenge of simply stating the
facts without the combative emotionalism.

If you can, I will be more inclined to read and respond to your posts.

Post a reply to this message