tacit said:
> In article
> <eb6c9347-4afc-449b-b3ca-23c1cc29e825@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Yashgt <yashgt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> I have chosen GIF for browser compatibility and also because I do not
>> have any experience with SWF.
>>
>> ImageMagick suggested by Richard is the tool I was looking for. I can
>> build a script and specify the files to be used as the constituents of
>> the GIF. I can then change it when I want to change the GIF.
>
> You will be sadly disappointed by the results.
>
> A GIF image can have no more than 256 colors maximum. If you have many
> different photographs in a GIF, even an animated GIF, they must share
> that same palette of 256 total colors. You'll go through a lot of work,
> then likely be horrified by the results.
GIFs are typically used where a high definition image is required but not
too
many colours are needed. The great advantage of the GIF format is that it
is
lossless - every detail is preserved, keeping the image crisp.
Unfortunately,
the great disadvantage of the GIF format is that it is lossless, making
the
use of many colours impractical (and as tacit points out, the upper limit
is
disappointingly low).
If you have cartoon-style images - hi-def, not many colours - GIFs work
just
fine, and animating them can look really cool. But photographs? Well, yes
you
can do it, but like the man said, it'll look *so* sucky.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www.
+rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
