Question 2560x1600 background gif (request of sorts)

Davy McShot

Davy McShot

Pirate Master
I have found almost no gifs 2560 by 1600. Let alone any I want to be my background.
On the Mac I'm using I have the capability of setting my background as a gif.
I wanted to give some of ye a bit of a small challenge.

Whoever makes me the best pirate or potc or tlopo or potco themed background, that is a gif and it's dimensions are 2560 px by 1600 px.. I will use that background. lol




NOTE: I'm currently using this image:
chinesestreet.gif
but I don't like it..
 
Gif backgrounds demand more resources, and you barely even look at your desktop. I find them pointless, but having a 2560x1600 one as well... That's a lot of usage, and it could even slow down the game.
 
They haven't been done for a reason.. It's because no one uses them, and they waste so many resources. Gifs are just a bunch of images together that repeat without sound. You can just find an image and add different effects to it, and put them all together with something like ezgif.com
 
This has now become quite a disappointing thread..

Divine said:
They haven't been done for a reason.. It's because no one uses them, and they waste so many resources. Gifs are just a bunch of images together that repeat without sound. You can just find an image and add different effects to it, and put them all together with something like ezgif.com
Click to expand...
 
Sorry for the late reply, I just saw this. Let me give a more thorough explanation here but I do agree with @Divine's comments.

Now a .gif sure yes it has this animation effect you want, but it is also not an ideal format at all when it comes to quality. This is because it can only store 256 colors maximum. If you have gradients, hues, shadows, highlights, the whole thing then all this become very very blurry and distorted. I do get why you would want to have such .gif as your desktop image, however I personally object to it and therefore no I do not take up the ''challenge''. I'd like to explaining my reasoning a bit better though if you do let me, here's why:

1. A professional would never accept their work to be displayed or even saved as a .gif, precisely for the quality loss and for it being pointless. If you want something in top quality (or even if you don't), but from the moment you're asking a professional you can't expect them to lower their standards.
2. I do not find this a ''challenge'' at all because there's absolutely no difficulty in making a .gif image for desktop and well mind you if I am to make something for somebody I make them all in print versions and therefore over 7000px, too big to become animated.
3. Look for quality, always. A .gif won't give you that, and those who claim to be able to do it then always expect a flaw in techniques, or flaws.
4. If you want something animated then its best you go with a short clip version, aka movie, just for the sake of preserving the quality and colors.


This is all I can think of for now. I have no issues being commissioned work but when it doesn't fit my standards I suggest other options or reject it so I'm sorry for that -- always happy to make you something in high quality, crisp and clear though :) cheers
 
Irene said:
Sorry for the late reply, I just saw this. Let me give a more thorough explanation here but I do agree with @Divine's comments.

Now a .gif sure yes it has this animation effect you want, but it is also not an ideal format at all when it comes to quality. This is because it can only store 256 colors maximum. If you have gradients, hues, shadows, highlights, the whole thing then all this become very very blurry and distorted. I do get why you would want to have such .gif as your desktop image, however I personally object to it and therefore no I do not take up the ''challenge''. I'd like to explaining my reasoning a bit better though if you do let me, here's why:

1. A professional would never accept their work to be displayed or even saved as a .gif, precisely for the quality loss and for it being pointless. If you want something in top quality (or even if you don't), but from the moment you're asking a professional you can't expect them to lower their standards.
2. I do not find this a ''challenge'' at all because there's absolutely no difficulty in making a .gif image for desktop and well mind you if I am to make something for somebody I make them all in print versions and therefore over 7000px, too big to become animated.
3. Look for quality, always. A .gif won't give you that, and those who claim to be able to do it then always expect a flaw in techniques, or flaws.
4. If you want something animated then its best you go with a short clip version, aka movie, just for the sake of preserving the quality and colors.


This is all I can think of for now. I have no issues being commissioned work but when it doesn't fit my standards I suggest other options or reject it so I'm sorry for that -- always happy to make you something in high quality, crisp and clear though :) cheers
Click to expand...
I did notice a huge decrease in quality in past gif I've made. I thought it was just trashy website I was using to convert the videos.
 
MarkPlankwalker said:
I did notice a huge decrease in quality in past gif I've made. I thought it was just trashy website I was using to convert the videos.
Click to expand...


Nope, this always happens with gifs exactly because they can only use 256 colors when you have thousands. And this can even only happen on small images - pretty much why I never make animated signatures here, because my files are too big and too clear, so when I animate them they look terrible. Imagine having to do a gif on a 1000px+ wallpaper or even bigger and having that file as desktop. Not happening lol

So it has nothing to do with skill of being able to do it or not, and therefore not a challenge.

What you should look for in an image is its composition, style, concept and structure, not what format it is @Davy McShot ;) just a pro tip.
 
MarkPlankwalker said:
I did notice a huge decrease in quality in past gif I've made. I thought it was just trashy website I was using to convert the videos.
Click to expand...


Also yes if you want to animate or showcase just a few seconds from a certain video then yeah do it as gif, but theres still loss in quality and you can see that in many memes even, as well as Davy's previous desktop image he has uploaded at the top. You can see the shadows and highlights from lamps being all crappy from the animation. Its not his fault or the artist's, just the format.
 
Tried to render one out before with just 4 different image varients and it was ~30 mb. Aside from the quality loss @Irene mentioned, the resources it would take to have it up would make your whole system lag. That's why gifs dont really surpass the 1000×1000 pixel mark, most being at ~500x200 (ideal for signatures only)
 
Divine said:
Tried to render one out before with just 4 different image varients and it was ~30 mb. Aside from the quality loss @Irene mentioned, the resources it would take to have it up would make your whole system lag. That's why gifs dont really surpass the 1000×1000 pixel mark, most being at ~500x200 (ideal for signatures only)
Click to expand...

Its not ideal for signatures either, not the way I do them anyway. About the system lag, it depends on your processors and such, I never lagged making them but however they do take some time to render, however you're still better off rendering a video in after effects and use it that way as .mp4 etc.
 
Irene said:
Its not ideal for signatures either, not the way I do them anyway. About the system lag, it depends on your processors and such, I never lagged making them but however they do take some time to render, however you're still better off rendering a video in after effects and use it that way as .mp4 etc.
Click to expand...
That is a good point, my current signature is 4 different images that play one after the other in gif format, and I can't see any quality loss, but I could be wrong.
 
Divine said:
That is a good point, my current signature is 4 different images that play one after the other in gif format, and I can't see any quality loss, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

you can't? I can totally see it :confused: and well the fact that your signature doesnt change as fast helps. You can see how the quality is being lost in these images below taking your signature as example @Divine @Davy McShot . You can clearly see dark and brighter lines otherwise called banding, and also tiny pixels moving about :)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_4.jpg
    Screenshot_4.jpg
    4.6 KB · Views: 127
  • Screenshot_5.jpg
    Screenshot_5.jpg
    1.6 KB · Views: 109
  • Screenshot_6.jpg
    Screenshot_6.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 121
  • Screenshot_7.jpg
    Screenshot_7.jpg
    4.8 KB · Views: 135
  • Screenshot_8.jpg
    Screenshot_8.jpg
    3.8 KB · Views: 120
  • Screenshot_9.jpg
    Screenshot_9.jpg
    7.2 KB · Views: 157
Irene said:
you can't? I can totally see it :confused: and well the fact that your signature doesnt change as fast helps. You can see how the quality is being lost in these images below taking your signature as example @Divine @Davy McShot . You can clearly see dark and brighter lines otherwise called banding, and also tiny pixels moving about :)
Click to expand...
The lines are a Wooden background, the image variants are just of a different % of a blue gradient overlay. But I do notice some quality loss thanks to the screenshots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top