I need to dig through my collection for some old animated GIFs, see if I can find any that displays correctly even when the GCT is missing, which could rule out this assumption. It's also possible for Imagine to behave erroneously when the above-mentioned Global Color Table is completely missing, although that block is marked as optional according to the standard. That's just one of the deviations from the standard that I noticed so far. The two bad frames of the barking dog could indicate such behavior.Īlready noticed an issue where images that do not contain a Global Color Table also have the number of colors in the GCT set to zero although the recommendations found around the web are to have that number present to assist in decoding. I already acknowledged the problem is in Imagine, but maybe it's not its fault directly - maybe the GIFs are badly built and Imagine just doesn't fix or ignore those issues. I tried both the ANSI and the Unicode variants of 1.1.0 and also 1.0.9 which was installed before, they all exhibit the same faulty behavior. Looking at the two info windows the only difference I see is that Imagine was able to count the unique colors (251) while IrfanView couldn't (Unknown). Thank you for testing and glad you found Imagine useful, it does indeed have a few handy functions. Couldn't find the real issue as of yet, except for a hunch that the missing Global Color Table may be the issue. I've skimmed through information on a few web pages and stumbled into a whole lot of fuss. Sorry, it always gets me started when it comes to this forcibly being pushed forwards - although I'm not sure that's the correct direction we're being pushed in.īack to the issue. NET and have no idea how to manipulate the bits in a byte to get eight boolean flags out of it. Many things would still work in XP and lower if there were real programmers out there building those applications, not kiddies that were born in. I know how things work, standards are constantly being changed, and not out of necessity but more out of greed, the planned obsolescence that makes everything unusable in a very short period of time. Yeah, I know the name "Imagine" is too common to be found easily, that's why I had already provided links to its homepage (as well as for FastStone Image Viewer, Total Commander and QtWeb) in first post, should anyone want to test. Here's a sample of such animation (browser will probably render it correctly): So, what the hell happened to the GIF format in the mean time? Can someone shed some light on this? And is there an older (XP-compatible, maybe Win9x-compatible too) tool that could capture screen areas and build old-style GIF animations - whatever that style may be?Īs for AHK, it now has arrays, objects, classes and all kinds of bells and whistles but still - after 14 years of development! - cannot natively render an animated GIF in a GUI. On a single-core 1.8GHZ CPU with only 1.5GB of PC133 SDRAM the choice of applications is essential. I've also noticed that large animations made by the same recent tools would sometimes drain all the system resources (RAM, page file and CPU) if open in the QtWeb browser which I've been using for some time instead of the much more resource-hungry Pale Moon stuffed with all kinds of extensions. Oh and tidbit: I have tried with both transparency enabled and disabled in Licecap - no change whatsoever. ![]() To me it's much easier to view an image in Total Commander's Lister (where Imagine kicks in) than in full-fledged FS Image Viewer, but this weird issue is quite disturbing. However, years ago I had never encountered an animated GIF that would play erroneously even in older versions of the Imagine plug-in/application. It definitely is a problem with Imagine since FastStone Image Viewer does render the respective animated GIFs correctly. Or maybe sometimes the program screws up, not sure. also, it's probably an issue with your image viewer for not handling the transparency correctly. some programs have an option to only draw the different pixels between frames. Tidbit wrote:the rendering issue is probably due to transparency.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |