Bob,
I visited that website you pointed out. Very interesting. Have you tried the
.mng format? Am I correct in assuming it is mainly for use in web pages? Is
it supported by the majority of browsers?
Steve Shelby
Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3b18de19@news.povray.org...
> "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
> news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
> > In article <3b182220@news.povray.org>, david sharp says...
> > > I think this is the first time I ever posted any animation,
> > > and I don't know if GIF is frowned upon for some
> > > reason (I mean since I see few here).
> > >
> > It is cute: but difficult to visualize what happens. And also a fairly
> > short animation, in fact.
> > GIF as an animation format has the inherent lack of colour depth of the
> > GIF images: IIRC 256 or less.
> > Why not try MPG?
>
> Aside from color count I think they can look pretty good because of
> sharpness.  Less distorted than when another, lossy, format is used.  File
> size is not easy to keep as low as MPG or AVI or MOV though.
> Also, most controversial thing might be explained at:
> http://burnallgifs.org/
>
> I have never even looked at the parametric object before, will now.  I see
> it can apparently do a helical shape in your animation.
>
> Bob H.
>
>

Post a reply to this message