GIF movie playback control

[Richard Hirsh]

Between build 174 and 177, the behavior of GIF movie playback changed. The play and move control used to be placed in the bottom right of the frame, which was adjusted to size so that the control was always visible, even for small images. Under build 177, the control appears to have been placed a fixed distance from the left of the frame, and is invisible for small images. Widening the display window with the mouse reveals the control, but starting the animation, causes the window immediately to shrink back down.Richard HirshFrom: "gcmac@yahoogroups.com" <gcmac@yahoogroups.com>To: gcmac@yahoogroups.comSent: Monday, March 28, 2011 6:55 AMSubject: [gcmac] Digest Number 2659 GC GC Messages In This Digest (10 Messages) 1a. Re: Low gif save From: Marie Harvey 2a. Replacing colors that are contiguous From: howedav 2b. Re: Replacing colors that are contiguous From: Thorsten Lemke 3a. Trim a Movie? From: Louis G5 Batayte 3b. Re: Trim a Movie? From: Thorsten Lemke 4a. Batch vs. Individual Alteration From: Matt 4b. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration From: Burkhard Hoefling 4c. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration From: Marino Pascal 4d. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration From: Roberto Manuel Latorre 4e. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration From: Thorsten Lemke View All Topics : Create New Topic Messages 1a. Re: Low gif save Posted by: "Marie Harvey" ladyhrvy@sbcglobal.net   ladyhrvy@sbcglobal.net Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:11 am (PDT) Thanks--guess I'm blind<G> Marie On Mar 27, 2011, at 2:15 AM, Thorsten Lemke wrote: > Hello, > > Uncheck the option in the save as dialog (you checked it). > > Thorsten > > > Von: Marie Harvey <ladyhrvy@sbcglobal. net> > > Antworten an: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > > Datum: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:54:59 -0500 > > An: Graphic Convertor <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > > Betreff: [gcmac] Low gif save > > > > Recently when I d/l and image from internet, then open and fix it in > > GC-when I save it as jpeg I also have a low gif icon on the desktop. > > Don't remember doing anything different but I don't need this. What > > do I need to do to stop it? > > > > I'm using GC v. 6.7.2 and OS X 4.11 > > Thanks. > > > > Marie Harvey > > > > Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (3) 2a. Replacing colors that are contiguous Posted by: "howedav" folkart@berkshire.net   howedav Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:57 am (PDT) In PS Elements you can make the color replacement tool only change contiguous areas of a color. In GC I can only find a tolerance setting. If there is the ability to select contiguous I would appreciate being informed where it might be. Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 2b. Re: Replacing colors that are contiguous Posted by: "Thorsten Lemke" lemke@lemkesoft.de   thorstenlemke Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:17 am (PDT) Hello, Thanks for your e-mail. You can use the fill tool with a tolerance for this. Thorsten > Von: howedav <folkart@berkshire. net> > Antworten an: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Datum: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:57:28 -0000 > An: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Betreff: [gcmac] Replacing colors that are contiguous > > In PS Elements you can make the color replacement tool only change contiguous > areas of a color. In GC I can only find a tolerance setting. If there is the > ability to select contiguous I would appreciate being informed where it might > be. > Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 3a. Trim a Movie? Posted by: "Louis G5 Batayte" loug5@batayte.com   KG_Granby Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:43 am (PDT) Hello, I have some 720x480 quicktime movies. I would like to trim these to 640x480. I can do this by exporting the movie from quicktime as a sequence of images, then use GC to trim the images, then use Quicktime to assemble the images back into a movie. Is there any way to do all of this using only GC? Thanks Louis Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 3b. Re: Trim a Movie? Posted by: "Thorsten Lemke" lemke@lemkesoft.de   thorstenlemke Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:16 am (PDT) Hello Louis, Sorry, this is currently not supported. Thorsten > Von: Louis G5 Batayte <loug5@batayte. com> > Antworten an: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Datum: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:42:50 -0400 > An: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Betreff: [gcmac] Trim a Movie? > > > Hello, > > I have some 720x480 quicktime movies. I would like to trim these to > 640x480. I can do this by exporting the movie from quicktime as a > sequence of images, then use GC to trim the images, then use Quicktime > to assemble the images back into a movie. Is there any way to do all > of this using only GC? > > Thanks > Louis Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (2) 4a. Batch vs. Individual Alteration Posted by: "Matt" mfwills@gmail.com   willsm@rocketmail.com Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:01 pm (PDT) Given: a 12mp image (portrait orientation: 3000 x 4000 @ 72) taken with a Fujifilm Finepix 2700. I want it reduced to 450 x 600. If I use a batch created specifically to do just that (just the scale command as I would do it manually, with the smooth algorithm), the image comes out rather jaggy on edges. If I use Menu / Size / Scale to do exactly the same thing, it is nice and smooth. One at a time is OK if I have only a couple of pictures, but it's a pain with 25-30 or so. What's the difference? What am I doing wrong? Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (5) 4b. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration Posted by: "Burkhard Hoefling" burkhard@hoefling.name   b_k_h_6_6 Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:49 pm (PDT) On 2011-03-27, at 21:01 , Matt wrote: > Given: a 12mp image (portrait orientation: 3000 x 4000 @ 72) taken with a Fujifilm Finepix 2700. > > I want it reduced to 450 x 600. If I use a batch created specifically to do just that (just the scale command as I would do it manually, with the smooth algorithm), the image comes out rather jaggy on edges. If I use Menu / Size / Scale to do exactly the same thing, it is nice and smooth. > > One at a time is OK if I have only a couple of pictures, but it's a pain with 25-30 or so. > > What's the difference? What am I doing wrong? Maybe you are using different scaling algorithms? In GC 6.7, you can choose from a variety of scaling algorithms, both for interactive scaling and for batch scaling. Cheers Burkhard. Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (5) 4c. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration Posted by: "Marino Pascal" weblists@locationscout.com   iscout Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:41 pm (PDT) Jaggy is usually related to quality compression Look in the GC info window. What is the compression for the batch vs scale images? 1:5 vs 1:15 means less compression, higher quality This is set in the JPG OPTIONS under quality. The closer to 100, the higher the quality, the less compression, the larger image size. You should never go over 95 though. Marino On 3/27/11 12:01 PM, Matt wrote: > Given: a 12mp image (portrait orientation: 3000 x 4000 @ 72) taken with a Fujifilm Finepix 2700. > > I want it reduced to 450 x 600. If I use a batch created specifically to do just that (just the scale command as I would do it manually, with the smooth algorithm), the image comes out rather jaggy on edges. If I use Menu / Size / Scale to do exactly the same thing, it is nice and smooth. > > One at a time is OK if I have only a couple of pictures, but it's a pain with 25-30 or so. > > What's the difference? What am I doing wrong? > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (5) 4d. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration Posted by: "Roberto Manuel Latorre" ronin55calo@yahoo.com   ronin55calo Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:06 pm (PDT) Hei, Marino: You mention "You should never go over 95 though" I wonder why? Nowadays JPG has a lossless capacity, which I use all the time before I put photos on DVD or other fixed medium. I use JP2 (jpeg 2000) for my lossless files--slightly smaller than both JPG or TIFF. What's your take? Very Truly Yours: Roberto Manuel LatorreHope is the feeling one has, that the feeling one has is temporary. Remember, you're unique, just like everybody else. ____________ _________ _________ __ From: Marino Pascal <weblists@locationsc out.com> To: gcmac@yahoogroups. com Cc: Matt <mfwills@gmail. com> Sent: Sun, March 27, 2011 10:41:19 PM Subject: Re: [gcmac] Batch vs. Individual Alteration Jaggy is usually related to quality compression Look in the GC info window. What is the compression for the batch vs scale images? 1:5 vs 1:15 means less compression, higher quality This is set in the JPG OPTIONS under quality. The closer to 100, the higher the quality, the less compression, the larger image size. You should never go over 95 though. Marino On 3/27/11 12:01 PM, Matt wrote: > Given: a 12mp image (portrait orientation: 3000 x 4000 @ 72) taken with a >Fujifilm Finepix 2700. > > I want it reduced to 450 x 600. If I use a batch created specifically to do >just that (just the scale command as I would do it manually, with the smooth >algorithm), the image comes out rather jaggy on edges. If I use Menu / Size / >Scale to do exactly the same thing, it is nice and smooth. > > One at a time is OK if I have only a couple of pictures, but it's a pain with >25-30 or so. > > What's the difference? What am I doing wrong? > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (5) 4e. Re: Batch vs. Individual Alteration Posted by: "Thorsten Lemke" lemke@lemkesoft.de   thorstenlemke Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:45 pm (PDT) Hello, Can I please get your batch zipped? Thorsten > Von: Matt <mfwills@gmail. com> > Antworten an: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Datum: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:01:41 -0000 > An: <gcmac@yahoogroups. com> > Betreff: [gcmac] Batch vs. Individual Alteration > > Given: a 12mp image (portrait orientation: 3000 x 4000 @ 72) taken with a > Fujifilm Finepix 2700. > > I want it reduced to 450 x 600. If I use a batch created specifically to do > just that (just the scale command as I would do it manually, with the smooth > algorithm), the image comes out rather jaggy on edges. If I use Menu / Size / > Scale to do exactly the same thing, it is nice and smooth. > > One at a time is OK if I have only a couple of pictures, but it's a pain with > 25-30 or so. > > What's the difference? What am I doing wrong? > Back to top Reply to sender : Reply to group : Reply via web post Messages in this topic (5) Recent Activity  10 New Members Visit Your Group Search Ads Get new customers. List your web site in Yahoo! Search. Yahoo! Groups Parenting Zone Community resources for parents Yahoo! Groups Mental Health Zone Find support for Mental illnesses Need to Reply? Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest. Create New Topic : Visit Your Group on the Web Messages : Files : Photos : Links : Databa(Message over 64 KB, truncated)