>   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

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:59:56 -0800, OpenMined wrote:
>
>>   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.

The wise person will download the trial first.  The RPM version breaks in
dozens of different ways if you're not running Red Hat.  Apparently someone
forgot to tell Corel that there are other systems that use RPM.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a79c30d@news.povray.org> , "OpenMined" <**Mail Free America**>
wrote:

> When PNG becomes universal (and animated), the issue might become moot.
> Until then, GIF hardly seems "out" to me.  Unless I'm missing something.

MPEG?

Post a reply to this message

> >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.
>
> The wise person will download the trial first.  The RPM version breaks in
> dozens of different ways if you're not running Red Hat.  Apparently
someone
> forgot to tell Corel that there are other systems that use RPM.

Thanks, Ron.   The ignorance or arrogance of many software manufacturers is
astonishing.  I am frequently disgusted when installations place 10s of
megabytes of unwanted 'stuff' on my hard drive, without asking or sometimes
without even advising, or force me to install ancillary packages even when I
uncheck them, or remove needed .dll files when deinstalling.  Like they were
programmed by narcissistic adolescents!  (Say, come to think of it...)
:-)



> --
> Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
> My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

> > When PNG becomes universal (and animated), the issue might become moot.
> > Until then, GIF hardly seems "out" to me.  Unless I'm missing something.
>
> MPEG?

Crossed my mind as possible... little experience with their use on web pages
yet, though.   (A window would not do for my needs.)

Would their display require an applet linking to a system-resident MPEG
player?   In any case, would their display be possible on 90% or more of
internet connected computer systems as configured?

It also occurs to me that if one is going to the trouble to use an applet,
perhaps one could download just about ANY sequence of images, regardless of
format, and display them as an animation.

Any thoughts?

Post a reply to this message

On 2001-02-01 02:09, OpenMined <**MailFreeAmerica**> wrote:
>Peter, I checked their site recently and came away with the belief that the
>license was a flat $5000 for software vendors, and a different arrangement
>for websites which serve software-generated GIFs.   I saw no mechanism by
>which they would license anything for a few dollars.

They probably changed it. 

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | which is our implementation of Linux.
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |	-- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000

Post a reply to this message

On 2001-02-01 20:14, OpenMined <**MailFreeAmerica**> wrote:
>When PNG becomes universal (and animated), the issue might become moot.

PNG will never become animated. It is meant for pictures, not movies.
There is however, an animation file format called "MNG", which is
derived from PNG.

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | which is our implementation of Linux.
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |	-- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, Peter.

Heard about that, but it appeared to be still under developed and
unsupported in web clients.

This may have changed- have had no further time to research it yet.

___

Peter J. Holzer <hjp### [at] SiKituwsracat> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] tealhhjpat...
> On 2001-02-01 20:14, OpenMined <**MailFreeAmerica**> wrote:
> >When PNG becomes universal (and animated), the issue might become moot.
>
> PNG will never become animated. It is meant for pictures, not movies.
> There is however, an animation file format called "MNG", which is
> derived from PNG.
>
> hp
>
> --
>    _  | Peter J. Holzer    | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
> |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | which is our implementation of Linux.
> | |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      |
> __/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000

Post a reply to this message

OpenMined wrote:

> I'd like to convert bitmap files to GIFs, especially animated GIFs, under
> Linux/Unix.

You should really consider png or mng (animated png - multiple network
graphics)

> Ideally, it should be controllable entirely from the command line.  Barring
> that, the process should be invocable from a script.

http://netpbm.sourceforge.net
2*n filters convert between n formats & the ppm/pgm/pbm formats (collectively
pnm)
It supports gifs though probably not legally
Don't use gifs anyway - they are outdated & patented
Bye,
Pabs

Post a reply to this message

Pabs wrote:
> 
> http://netpbm.sourceforge.net
> 2*n filters convert between n formats & the ppm/pgm/pbm formats (collectively
> pnm)
> It supports gifs though probably not legally
> Don't use gifs anyway - they are outdated & patented
                                   ^^^^^^^^
                                     why ?

-- 
Thierry Boudet                          http://la.buvette.org/troll/

Post a reply to this message