TinyChan

Topic: Hey, FuckAlms.

+Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. — 10.7 years ago #43,826

Why do some gifs show up glitchy on the board until you click them, do you know, is there a way to fix it?

+On !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 17 minutes later[T] [B] #479,643

it's a shit old problem to me as well

·Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #479,645

@previous (On !Uvm54ORbmo)

So, FuckAlms has no solution, then?

+Anonymous C — 10.7 years ago, 13 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #479,646

When they show up on TC glitchy they also do the same on MC.

·Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #479,649

@previous (C)
I'll take that as a yes. I Shan't rest until a solution is found.

·Syntax — 10.7 years ago, 25 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #479,650

@previous (Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1.)
Guess only. Quality produced gif shows up without glitchy
What we really need is a test board. A way to preview and test. Many real forums have such.
Chans never pretended to be forums.

The glitch does bug me. Then again BUGS are part and parcel in work I have to deal with.

+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 10.7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,652

It's complicated. The short of it is that you have to sacrifice frame efficiency to make sure gifs will render properly as thumbnails.

The attached gif renders properly, but is 5116 bytes, while the same full-sized image can be represented in only 4414 bytes. Ultimately it's a problem with ImageMagick.

(Edited 15 seconds later.)

·Syntax — 10.7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,655

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Actually such trade offs are common in the technical world.

Trade offs' that compromise quality in one part of the equation Help render over all Appearance Quality in the final product.

Used to bug the shit out of me back in my Engineering Manager days - Had to jam that principle down throats of young engineers. They wanted to over design and I wood tell them - If you continue to do it that way your design will never see the light of the day NOR will the end user appreciate a few less flaws because you end up concentrating on wot you think are the most important features of the product and the end user will always want more which might not even be wot you thing they need.

So it looks like in the case of Gifs - You can do a lot but NOT if you push frames - Old film wagon wheel strobe effect - 30 Frames/sec will always strobe the spinning wheels making them look weird.
Then when projected on prior 24FPS TV raster scan 30FPS conversion the weird wood get more weird.

Thanks for the explanation.

Wots really a pain is to see them appear to render ok when looking them up and then discover they look like shit when posted.

+Namefag !nF1excN/uc — 10.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,657

Just switch to webM, shit's amazing

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 10.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,660

@479,655 (Syntax )
if they look fine when looking them up (like on google image search) it's because google fetches the full size image and the browser scales it to the proper viewing size. for some reason browsers have no trouble scaling gifs to whatever size. when the image gets thumbnailed by imagemagick, it's rendered to a specific max-width/height of 200px and saved that way as a separate file. the alternative is to load the original image and set the max dimensions to 200px browser-side, but this defeats the original purpose of thumbnails which is to provide a low-res preview using less bandwidth. of course, that isn't a foolproof science either. this attached image more than doubles in size when rendered as a thumbnail.

·Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,661

@479,652 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

+The Robot — 10.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,662

Beep bop boop

·Syntax — 10.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #479,665

@479,660 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
OK I just need to find a place to pre test gifs pulled from imgur or Google (imgur currently is my best source for gifs)
On occasion I will check Chrome vs Firefox on a view and in the past there were differences. Now Firefox has caught up so I never see any diff.

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 10.7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,668

@479,655 (Syntax )
also, I'm not referring to frame rate, but frame size. as you mentioned a few weeks ago, this image shows no animation in the thumbnail. the frame only needs to be as large as the area which changes, in this case, the blood under this guy's nose. you can significantly reduce the size of the image by eliminating the blank areas, but the blank areas are what force imagemagick to scale the frame properly.

·Syntax — 10.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,670

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Yea that is a most excellent example. r04r's latest code change may solve that - hummmm I am going to test this out NOW

Damn look at this with her new code. Now even without clicking on to open size UP - it works - except until its clicked on the quality is shit yet does animate
http://minichan.org/topic/46749#reply_616490

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 10.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,673

@previous (Syntax )
Yeah, like I stated there, the browser is scaling it. if you right click the "thumbnail" and select 'View Image Info' you see that the full size is being scaled to 197x200

+Anonymous G — 10.7 years ago, 56 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,678

Just dropped in to see if syntax was spewing gibberi....

Yep, I should be shocked, but I'm not.

·Namefag !nF1excN/uc — 10.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,679

@previous (G)
I am fucking shocked, I go away for two years and he figures out how to speak human?! What the fuck else has changed, is Kimmo a mod?

·Syntax — 10.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,681

@479,678 (G)
You get wot you pay4

·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 10.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #479,682

@479,679 (Namefag !nF1excN/uc)
Depends who you ask. bert would say On is Kimmo.

@479,657 (Namefag !nF1excN/uc)
possibly in the worksbut you didn't hear it from me

+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #479,829

@479,670 (Syntax )

Is r04r's dick a 15 minute drive from your cum filled throtey throte throte?

+Anonymous I — 10.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #479,830

Dr phil gif.gif

@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)

·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #479,831

@previous (I)

Thanks for using my may-may!

Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.