__/ [ Jim Carlock ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 18:27 \__
> __/ [ Jim Carlock ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 00:21 \__
>> I'm trying to create 16 images each 1 pixel in size and then
>> save them in a .gif format.
>
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> May I ask what for? You can achieve this using CSS in many cases.
>> That aside, on a humorous note perhaps, it is common tool among
>> spyware vendors and spammers -- one transparent pixel or one that
>> mixes with the background for HotLinking. I know you from other
>> groups already, so just to clarify, the OP is definitely not doing any
>> of that...
>
> I was running some test on which program I have that'll make the
> smallest .gif image and exploring Gimp. Gimp makes a nice small
> image (smaller than any other software I have), 35 bytes (not that
> that matters much because on most Microsoft file systems these
> days the minimum space occupied by a file is either 512 bytes or
> 4096 bytes (i.e., cluster size)).
I am familiar with that experience.
> Anyways, that's here nor there, but other programs, specifically
> one that Microsoft gave away free at one time but no longer
> lists at their site, GifAnimator, indicates the file is corrupt, while
> Internet Explorer and Firefox display the files fine (I'm going to
> chalk that up as that GifAnimator is really old software and this
> possibly represents a "by design" failure).
Just remember that the GIMP can help you generate nice GIF animations [1], as
well.
> As far as CSS goes, I am using CSS and a gif image to confirm
> the images are proper and the background gets displayed in the
> proper color... body { background-image:URL("white1x1.gif"); }.
> ;-)
>
> The reason, I asked, is because I'm exploring Gimp. It's not the
> most intuitive interface around.
It is a matter of perspective and habits one adopts. If you find the
transition hard, consider GIMPShop[2]. Personally, the GIMP interface makes
it tremendously easier to manage multiple images simultaneously. The GIMP
teams got it right! I used Photoshop and Paintshop in the past. It was poor
for managing an environment _in parallel_ because you are confined to lie in
a box with just one menu pane.
> I ran into this problem in the past. Sometimes it helps to ask a
> question to get some reactions and responses to get a better
> feel for things and possibly explore some other alternatives.
>
> Gimp requires retraining. I'm having problems with that myself.
> Maybe it's old age sinking in. Maybe it's stubbornness. I don't
> know but it's a slow process.
All beginnings are hard. I used to _fight_ to the GIMP when I first used it.
I couldn't figure out that I had to use SHIFT to draw lines, for example.
Later on everything became a pleasure and all these peeves I had finally
proved themselves to have _merits_. For professionals, that's just the right
paradigm. The tradeoff here is function versus entry barrier or ease-of-use
(for a beginner) versus overall efficiency.
> And that brings up another question. I just moved a 1 pixel
> image off the background. I went to grab it and move it back
> but Gimp fails to let me grab it now. How very odd... it's
> another retraining thing. Anyone know if there's a keyboard
> shortcut to /permanently/ change the Move action in the Move
> toolbar, from "Pick a layer or guide" to "Move the current layer"?
> The "Shift" key does it temporarily but that also is another
> retraining thing. Everything works backwards or upsidedown or
> right-side up in Gimp. My mind is trained to using the Shift key
> in combination with the mouse for multiple selectings. Basically,
> it's hard to teach a man to run backwards as fast as he runs
> forwards. I learned to walk forward (or backwards) and now
> learn to walk another way. ;-)
*smile* I guess that, again, it's a matter of habits. When I first used Adobe
Acrobat Reader (many, many years ago), the method of scrolling (pushing) the
document seemed adverse to logic. The rationale (paper equivalent) was fine,
but I couldn't get my mind to work with the mouse properly, so to say.
> Henning Makholm mentioned "netpbm (ppmmake | ppmtogif)
> or imagemagick", both of which seem to be command-line
> tools for converting images from one format to another.
> Intriguing things there. Thanks, Henning. Henning threw me a
> hook and I bit into it.
>
> I just don't know how to use them or if there's a suggested
> way to use them. Something must have triggered the reply and
> I'm now curious as why Henning suggested such command-line
> tools for the job.
Command-line tools are best bar none _provided you are already familiar with
them_. Again, there is a worthwhile entry barrier. Handle with care and
think how frequently you will use this function in the future. It's an
investment. How many will the fruit be and how big will the investment
(time) be?
> Perhaps, by providing the command-line syntax for doing such
> things Henning might help a little more?
>
> I read through some of the files, lots of interesting things there.
> The .\netpbm10\misc\rgb.txt provides a nice list of color
> names (seems like a quality resource for training to go onto
> one of the Millionaire shows (get to know all the names of
> the Crayola Crayons)).
> ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/netpbm/ )
>
> The file I downloaded was the binaries for Windows,
> netpbm-10.27-bin.zip
> MD5: 747f3067bd77533b4b6da2c8e73a5ff4
Over to you, Henning. You can't just teach an old dog (me) new tricks... not
without a good reason anyway... *smile*
Best wishes,
Roy
[1]
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/26/animation-with-the-gimp/
[2] http://www.gimpshop.net/
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:45am up 17 days 13:42, 12 users, load average: 0.91, 0.67, 0.75
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
