Shot gif animation

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:13 am

I have made 2 gif animations (I think they are bzflag related enough to go on the forums

) , I have just learnt how to make gif's so they might not be the best. I know I know, the second one is abit glitchey but here they are....

Tell me what you think

Grace F · Post by **Grace F** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:36 am

They look pretty good. Im not an animations person so I can't give you any professional advice but I noticed something with your first Animation.

When the text "No really, it is...." and ".....Look at the screen" the border directly across to the right of it dissapears.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:40 am

Yeh

, I am pretty sure that that has something to do with the text box over riding the border, My-bad

khazhyk · Post by **khazhyk** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:29 pm

I'll like the first one as soon as you can actually get bzflag to run on an ipod, not just edit the picture with photoshop, of take a screenie of bzflag and open it on your ipod.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:06 pm

Curse ye photoshop user, gimp rules all!

khazhyk · Post by **khazhyk** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:08 pm

I thought you used photoshop, I don't use it personally, because it doesn't run on Linux. Still, what said above.

Winny · Post by **Winny** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:10 pm

I really don't see where you are getting this "OMG GIMP IZ T3H PWNT PHTOTOSHOP!!!!11" stuff from...

Have you ever even used photoshop? Or did you just open it, and go "ew, complex", close it, then move onto GIMP? (heck, gimp is worse then PS in that respect...)

Photoshop has more advanced features then gimp, and is more widely used for complex graphics, advertisements, etc.

CannonBallGuy · Post by **CannonBallGuy** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:20 pm

We're going off topic here, but I'd like to quickly expand on what Win just said:
Sure, GIMP is nice as far as free software goes, but Photoshop costs a heck of a lot of money - and is worth it if you're working in the industry. It is streets ahead, and will be for a long time.
Basically, you get what you pay for when comparing PS to GIMP.

Back on topic, you seem to have the basics of animation down, move onto something more complex... Maybe have a few tanks driving, jumping and shooting.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:11 pm

Win Xp
I actualy didn't say what you put in quotes, so please don't quote me on stuff I didn't say.
PS has been around for longer than the gimp therefore it has had more chance for it's popularity to grow.

Yes I have used paint shop and I did have a good look around. I found gimp better.

The main difference is that PS has pantones which are proprietary therefore cost money (note: the gimp is free). Pantones are only usefull if you are printing block colors.

CannonBallGuy
"you get what you pay for" With free software, you don't pay for features you don't use. eg: Pantones

Spazzy McGee · Post by **Spazzy McGee** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:59 pm

PETER wrote: I actualy didn't say what you put in quotes, so please don't quote me on stuff I didn't say.
PS has been around for longer than the gimp therefore it has had more chance for it's popularity to grow.

Yes I have used paint shop and I did have a good look around. I found gimp better.

Face it, man. Photoshop (not paintshop) is the better software - for this reason the _entire_ publishing and advertising industries use it (you think they wouldn't switch to free software if they could?! Do you have any idea how much creative departments spend on photoshop software?).

GIMP is a great bit of software - one of the best free packages out there - but against the potential of photoshop, GIMP just doesn't hold up. There are many features of photoshop which gimp doesn't have. Photoshop has some serious power under the hood, and many of it's most powerful features aren't centered in the interface, guns blazing.

I've used both, and while I've found GIMP to be very good indeed, it just doesn't have the power that photoshop does.

Contrary to what you may suggest, pantones are not the only thing photoshop has over GIMP... Here are some of them:

One of the reasons the media don't switch to GIMP is it's inability to use CMYK color - standard printing primaries.

Layer blending effects - what are known as 'non destructive' effect, these blend with the layer - to produce bevel, shadow and outline effects - without the underlying layer actually changing. They also update in real-time and are a daily can't-live-without for many photoshop users.

Vector text tools, and advanced text manipulation tools. Photoshop's text abilities are second to none.

PhotoShop's interface is fantastically intuitive - easy to find your way around, and at the same time super-productive. Not something that can be said for GIMP.

In conclusion - say what you will about PhotoShop, glorify the GIMP - the fact of the matter is that PhotoShop is the better app. But this is not to say it's not good - far from it! GIMP is an amazing bit of kit, and while not yet suitable for the professional, it's a worthy candidate for it in the future, when it's caught up a bit, and a worthy candidate for the home user.

As a post script, Photoshop is not the same as Photoshop Elements is not the same as Paint Shop Pro.

Davy Jones · Post by **Davy Jones** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:26 pm

Nice work peter, On your "ipod" gif, personally i think there should be some sort of pause between "Look at the screen." and "Yep..." maybe some sort of signal to suggest that the gif is starting over, like it going black or something

Post by **L4m3r** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Spazzy Mcgee wrote:Layer blending effects - what are known as 'non destructive' effect, these blend with the layer - to produce bevel, shadow and outline effects - without the underlying layer actually changing. They also update in real-time and are a daily can't-live-without for many photoshop users.

OMG, yes. Last time I used gimp, not having those blending options made me want to kill myself.

The one thing I really like about GIMP is that it works well with window-snapping in Gnome and KDE. The default interface really sucks, but if you arrange the windows just right and snap them together it can be a LOT better, especially on a widescreen. it's nice to have the image area bound in a window, rather than having it go behind your toolbars (that is really annoying when you try to work on the extreme right of an image while zoomed way in). I've got photoshop laid out in a similar manner, but the lack of snapping in Windows makes me unable to really take full, 100% advantage of all my screen real estate.

Tedius · Post by **Tedius** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:05 pm

Personally, I think your iPod picture would make a great signature except without the animated text. It is a clever enough idea that you don't have to knock people over the head with it.

In our overhyped world, it is the understated that stands out.

Catoblepas · Post by **Catoblepas** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:11 am

Spazzy Mcgee
I don't agree with what you you said about PS's interface being "intuitive - easy to find your way around, and at the same time super-productive.", I personally like gimps interface alot more, having the ability to personalize the way your windows are set up I really like.

(sorry to but in like that)

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:28 am

Catoblepas
I couldn't have put it better my self, I ohnestly couldnt have, so just imagen there is text bleow this and it is saying what Catoblepas did

Mostly Harmless! · Post by **Mostly Harmless!** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:04 am

Can't you have a transparent background for the bullet? That would work better.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:12 am

Yes I could have, I don't know how because I am still learning.

Spazzy, you have convinced me to switch to photo shop for a week, I'll give it a good try and then make my decision.

CannonBallGuy · Post by **CannonBallGuy** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:40 pm

PETER wrote:Yes I could have, I don't know how because I am still learning.

Spazzy, you have convinced me to switch to photo shop for a week, I'll give it a good try and then make my decision.

You can afford to buy it and only use it for one week?

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:23 pm

My dad writes for a computer magazine (PC Plus) so he gets loads of free software and hardware for him to use and write about (finger print reading mouses, vista, PS and other stuff) . The best bit is that I get to use it as well.

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:26 am

PETER wrote:My dad writes for a computer magazine (PC Plus) so he gets loads of free software and hardware for him to use and write about (finger print reading mouses, vista, PS and other stuff) . The best bit is that I get to use it as well.

How come that sounds illegal...? Oh, wait, because it is. Please see section 2.4 "Portable or Home Computer Use" and section 4.4 "Transfer" of the Photoshop CS2 EULA.

In other words, the EULA permits the exclusive use for one person, and one person only.

temporal distraction · Post by **temporal distraction** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:43 am

Actually the Adobe CS2 EULA allows for two installs as long as they aren't used at the same time. They changed it so a person could use a copy both at work and home or laptop.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdf ... nedCS2.pdf

(section)2.4 Portable or Home Computer Use. They primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the "evaluation" copy that was provided can legally be transferred to another individual (even a relative). So it's up to PETER to decide the risk he's willing to take. Talking about it on a public forum may not be the smartest thing to do though.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:16 am

A Meteorite and a temporal distraction
The EULA is an end user license agreement. My dad isn't an end user.
My dad is a British subject (there is no such thing as a British citizen). As such, we have a right to free speech. My dad is also an accredited journalist and as such, he has the right to report.

CannonBallGuy · Post by **CannonBallGuy** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:47 pm

PETER wrote:there is no such thing as a British citizen

Wrong.
I quoteth the factual content of wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject wrote:On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship", and no other. In statutes passed before 1 January 1983, however, references to "British subjects" continue to be read as if they referred to "Commonwealth citizens".
British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British subject status is not lost upon acquiring British citizenship.
The status of British subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct when all existing British subjects are dead.

Furthermore, a right to "free speech" is not similar, let alone equivalent, in any way, to a right to steal.
To use software that you have not paid for is theft and, therefore, illegal.
Whether you interpret the EULA as such that "his or her exclusive use" also allows the use of a blood relative is entirely up to you.
But the way I read it, you would be taking a significant risk in doing so.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:55 pm

about wikipedia... not saying that the above isnt true...but you cant automatically assume is true just because you saw it on wikipedia

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:03 pm

PETER wrote:A Meteorite and a temporal distraction
The EULA is an end user license agreement. My dad isn't an end user.
My dad is a British subject (there is no such thing as a British citizen). As such, we have a right to free speech. My dad is also an accredited journalist and as such, he has the right to report.

Your dad is an end-user the moment he installs the software on his computer and uses the Photoshop software. That is because in order to install it, he must agree to the EULA, which is a contract with him and Adobe in regard to how he can use the Photoshop software. Journalists do not get out of contracts just like normal citizens do not. Although journalists have the right to free speech, just as every citizen (that is, in some countries) does, free speech does not allow them to break a contract or to bypass them. All free speech means is he can report on what he sees, it does not give him the authorization to break a contract (the EULA) to get to see something (in this case, Photoshop).

Plus, end-user has nothing to do with citizenship or being a subject (though what CBG said is true). End-user is relevant to the software and EULA, it has nothing to do with your government, nor do journalists get to escape from being end-users. Heck, if the EULA included a NDA (non-disclosure agreement), your dad would have to abide by that even though he has a right to free speech. That would be a condition that your dad must abide by in order to use Photoshop, and if he breaks that, Adobe could sue for breaking the contract (EULA).

Macrosoft wrote:about wikipedia... not saying that the above isnt true...but you cant automatically assume is true just because you saw it on wikipedia

If you don't believe it, read the legislation here or at about a million other places online: http://www.legislationline.org/legislat ... 1&lid=3866 Oh, and I'd say wikipedia is pretty darn accurate due to the amount of peer review it goes under.

Oh, yeah, I am not a lawyer, but I have a pretty darn good feeling I have a good grasp on these subjects.