gif animation speed
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Resources and Support
Forum Discription: Help your fellow pixel artists out with links to good tutorials, other forums, software, fonts, etc. Bugs and support issues should go here as well.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12701
Printed Date: 09 April 2026 at 2:54pm
Topic: gif animation speed
Posted By: neofotistou
Subject: gif animation speed
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 5:48am
|
hi everyone! A pixel of mine was accepted in the gallery, and it looked too fast. I'm trying to emulate 12 fps, so in the photoshop animation panel, I gave each frame a delay of 0.08sec. This looks too fast on pixeljoint. I remedied it by changing the frame delay to 0.1, and now it feels about right. Is it a known issue? Is it my browser (firefox)? Is it my imagination? And if not, is there a remedy? This is the animation in question: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/64262.htm# Thanks |
Replies:
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 6:58am
|
Somewhere on this section of the forum is a thread that explains this to great detail. I was unable to find it :( Browsers do show speed at different rates. Hardware may affect speed too. I use PS and generally always hover on 0.02fps. ------------- |
Posted By: yrizoud
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 9:04am
|
I kinda remember a 2009 journal entry on deviantart that listed the various browsers's behaviors. For example, Firefox respects duration >= 3/100s and converts smaller durations to 3/100s, except 0 which magically becomes 10/100s. At least that's what it did in Firefox 3 -> 3.6, I haven't tested since. Browsers follow these crazy rules in order to "fix" web images that have been created on broken image editors and visible on broken browsers in the 90s. Yay.  By the way, something that isn't even clear in the GIF 89a standard is whether the delay is in addition to rendering time, or if the rendering system should compensate rendering time (ie. result in a consistent total duration, no matter how fast the computer is, by skipping frames if necessary.) @jal: 0.02fps = each frame lasts at least 50 seconds  You mean 0.02s or 2/100s |
Posted By: neofotistou
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 12:36pm
|
thanks guys, I thought I was going crazy! Do you fix it when you post a pixel, or do you just leave it as is? (50 seconds a frame, oh my gods, don't get me started! I was at an animation workshop two weeks ago, and one of the participants thought "claymation" is making a scene out of clay and then photographing it, and then making a movie out of it, by repeating three shots of the scene, zooming in and out and fading, accompanied by sappy 60ies french ballads. It was torture, and we all had to watch that twice. Arghh! If I can find it, I'll post it here, it was torture) |
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 9:01pm
------------- |
Posted By: yrizoud
Date Posted: 11 August 2011 at 12:44am
|
> Do you fix it when you post a pixel Almost everybody will see animations only through a browser... By the way, I don't really understand why 8/100s would visibly behave differently in Photoshop or on a browser. Maybe Photoshop itself would limit duration 10/100s when they're smaller ? |
Posted By: neofotistou
Date Posted: 11 August 2011 at 3:40am
|
No, photoshop seems to respect the durations, because there's a real difference between .08s, 0.09s and .1s |
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 11 August 2011 at 5:31am
|
At the risk of embarrassing myself again... When I view my animations within Photoshop the timing is different than when I view in a browser. I always just preview in Firefox, Safari and Opera and judge from that. It is my understanding that what you view within PS is correct and the browser speeds is just to find a 'happy visual medium' :/ ------------- |
Posted By: neofotistou
Date Posted: 11 August 2011 at 2:49pm
| http://humpy77.deviantart.com/journal/12374968/ <- found it by accident, J. It was in the noobtorials post ^-^ |