Wow! Thanks to Sally for tuning up my .gif. It's running much better now.
I downloaded the gif, opened it into fireworks, selected the image in each frame and copied them to new files in photoshop. Then I did a batch levels adjustment in photoshop to brighten all the images at once, and saved them as new files. then I re-imported them, hopefully in the right order, back into fireworks. the reason it is smoother is cause in fireworks I made it run at 10 frames per second instead of 20. it all took under 10 minutes. but then I do have some kickass software. I say get yourself fireworks for Christmas and you will have tons of fun. you can bypass the camera and just import your frames right from files made in MacPaint.
The thought of buying and learning (relatively) expensive proprietary software makes me blanch. But I do use Photoshop to brighten and resize images for the web, and it sounds like FW is just a way to do that with simple animations. (I can only do so much with the camera alone.) As for importing files directly from the paint program, I would certainly try that, but I think the intermediate steps of printing, cutting, and photographing are what's giving the work its jerky, clunky edge. At least with the few I've done so far. Thanks for the encouragement re: trying out new tools--I need it! (Thanks to other Tree-ers as well.)
another thing about fireworks is that, like a poor man's flash, it has very basic paint and vector drawing tools, as well as layers for each frame. And now I will shut up about it.
Photoshop and Fireworks is the way to go.
Of course pirated software is out of the question, I've shelled out thousands for all my programs.
The offish yellow tint still irks me some, especially as you are using basic color codes of red blue yellow green, however they come across more true nonetheless separated from the real captured environment of the background field, which we are still having to grapple with. Animated gifs are fine, as they express see me see me--except what is there to see--an animated GIF still working too quick, heavily still reliant on a physical off hue created by a camera/software misnomer? What are we meant to be looking at--the animation or all the parts that make up the animation. I agree, almost completely, that the paint formulary which is available stemmies any real movement away from a painted object--which, to say the least, seems like an labor intensive activity, tied to paint though not wholly expressive of painting, which I guess you are trying to escape, especially, if you are trying to bring to the fore, by leaving the synthetic myth of paint and its labor, which might tend you in the direction to really consider why is paint so debilitating, or to just simply say--paint is in the road. The great thing about paint is that it highlighted the manipulation on many levels--the real, illusion, a sense of purposing, a surrendering, a relinquishing, skill building, and the learning of shortcuts, or even the liberating aspect of I don't care. This of course, within the paint, and paint as a medium and the product that paint sets up to engage the manipulator in various technical acrobatics, creates, what is it--a conceit--embodying something, utilizing somewhere, elsewhere, ignoring bluntly, or going hard, expecting nothing in return. Though as you say, paint has all this limitation. Why then call to attention paint[ing] at all, unless, of course there is some attempt to open the veins, from where painting has flown [f;lown], brushed, or stumbled against, whatever, onto some surface of imagination and purpose. What is it about this fascination, with paint, especially without it, which still draws a correlation to it, though, I feel, and as you mentioned, can go without it/ How, or can it happen without its rejection--Still, without paint? Well at least these are inherently the questions the problems of knowing something and knowing just something.
By the way--I donŐt use paint either.
Lots of Fun! Perhaps this doesnŐt make sense--but in oneŐs head, where there is no one sense--maybe it does?
B
|
Wow! Thanks to Sally for tuning up my .gif. It's running much better now.
- tom moody 12-01-2003 12:11 pm
I downloaded the gif, opened it into fireworks, selected the image in each frame and copied them to new files in photoshop. Then I did a batch levels adjustment in photoshop to brighten all the images at once, and saved them as new files. then I re-imported them, hopefully in the right order, back into fireworks. the reason it is smoother is cause in fireworks I made it run at 10 frames per second instead of 20. it all took under 10 minutes. but then I do have some kickass software. I say get yourself fireworks for Christmas and you will have tons of fun. you can bypass the camera and just import your frames right from files made in MacPaint.
- sally mckay 12-01-2003 6:55 pm
The thought of buying and learning (relatively) expensive proprietary software makes me blanch. But I do use Photoshop to brighten and resize images for the web, and it sounds like FW is just a way to do that with simple animations. (I can only do so much with the camera alone.) As for importing files directly from the paint program, I would certainly try that, but I think the intermediate steps of printing, cutting, and photographing are what's giving the work its jerky, clunky edge. At least with the few I've done so far. Thanks for the encouragement re: trying out new tools--I need it! (Thanks to other Tree-ers as well.)
- tom moody 12-01-2003 7:48 pm
another thing about fireworks is that, like a poor man's flash, it has very basic paint and vector drawing tools, as well as layers for each frame. And now I will shut up about it.
- sally mckay 12-01-2003 7:48 pm
Photoshop and Fireworks is the way to go.
Of course pirated software is out of the question, I've shelled out thousands for all my programs.
- steve 12-01-2003 9:40 pm
The offish yellow tint still irks me some, especially as you are using basic color codes of red blue yellow green, however they come across more true nonetheless separated from the real captured environment of the background field, which we are still having to grapple with. Animated gifs are fine, as they express see me see me--except what is there to see--an animated GIF still working too quick, heavily still reliant on a physical off hue created by a camera/software misnomer? What are we meant to be looking at--the animation or all the parts that make up the animation. I agree, almost completely, that the paint formulary which is available stemmies any real movement away from a painted object--which, to say the least, seems like an labor intensive activity, tied to paint though not wholly expressive of painting, which I guess you are trying to escape, especially, if you are trying to bring to the fore, by leaving the synthetic myth of paint and its labor, which might tend you in the direction to really consider why is paint so debilitating, or to just simply say--paint is in the road. The great thing about paint is that it highlighted the manipulation on many levels--the real, illusion, a sense of purposing, a surrendering, a relinquishing, skill building, and the learning of shortcuts, or even the liberating aspect of I don't care. This of course, within the paint, and paint as a medium and the product that paint sets up to engage the manipulator in various technical acrobatics, creates, what is it--a conceit--embodying something, utilizing somewhere, elsewhere, ignoring bluntly, or going hard, expecting nothing in return. Though as you say, paint has all this limitation. Why then call to attention paint[ing] at all, unless, of course there is some attempt to open the veins, from where painting has flown [f;lown], brushed, or stumbled against, whatever, onto some surface of imagination and purpose. What is it about this fascination, with paint, especially without it, which still draws a correlation to it, though, I feel, and as you mentioned, can go without it/ How, or can it happen without its rejection--Still, without paint? Well at least these are inherently the questions the problems of knowing something and knowing just something.
By the way--I donŐt use paint either.
Lots of Fun! Perhaps this doesnŐt make sense--but in oneŐs head, where there is no one sense--maybe it does?
B
- anonymous (guest) 12-02-2003 6:21 pm