RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

winners movie

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

7 of 7 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

winners movie Carol Spears 22 Dec 03:13
  winners movie Sven Neumann 22 Dec 12:16
  winners movie Shlomi Fish 22 Dec 13:20
   winners movie Carol Spears 24 Dec 02:01
  winners movie Owen 23 Dec 08:51
winners movie William Skaggs 24 Dec 16:25
  winners movie David Hodson 25 Dec 01:11
Carol Spears
2004-12-22 03:13:37 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

i learned how to encode mpg's since the contest. anyone using gap should note that "Master Encoder" means just that ....

i finished the movie about the winners and added some additional splash that got lost in the shuffle.

there are still some missing splash, from the days of mmmaybe.gimp.org; apologies to these people are in order. not only did i lose them several times back then, i seem to have lost them for good.

i put another little treat on my web site also; a tarball of gimp image mosaic thumbnails. such colorful splash and so many entries, it seemed to fit the image mosaic bill.

thanks for the fun!

the winners movie: http://carol.gimp.org/gimp/2.2/contest/splash-winners.mpg the image mosaic thumbnails:
http://carol.gimp.org/gimp/2.2/contest/splash-mosaic-thumbs.tar.gz

carol

Sven Neumann
2004-12-22 12:16:19 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

the winners movie:
http://carol.gimp.org/gimp/2.2/contest/splash-winners.mpg

The movie would have been nicer without all those needless side blows. Also, the information about the next stable GIMP version is not correct. The next stable GIMP will most probably be called 2.4, not 3.0. I don't think we need to break binary compatibility for the next version already.

Sven

Shlomi Fish
2004-12-22 13:20:59 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

On Wednesday 22 December 2004 04:13, Carol Spears wrote:

i learned how to encode mpg's since the contest. anyone using gap should note that "Master Encoder" means just that ....

i finished the movie about the winners and added some additional splash that got lost in the shuffle.

Nice! My only complaint is that sometimes the displayed text was displayed for too little time and I did not have enough time to read it.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.

Owen
2004-12-23 08:51:59 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:13:37 -0800 Carol Spears wrote:

i finished the movie about the winners and added some additional splash that got lost in the shuffle.

Well if that was your first effort, well done. Some of the text was a bit fast for me, but that's ok, look forward to your next production.

Carol Spears
2004-12-24 02:01:44 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 02:20:59PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:

Nice! My only complaint is that sometimes the displayed text was displayed for too little time and I did not have enough time to read it.

forgive me, i am a rude and literate american.

first a question. i watched a few buster keaton silent movies and tried to determine how long text should be displayed. apparently, this method failed me; especially with an international audience. what is that called? the time you should leave text displayed in an animation like this and where can you find information about it? guidelines or something like this? each text block was a different length than all the others; so i would assume there is no set length of time. some guidelines as to how long though would help me (probably others as well). maybe someone on this list has at least the terminology and perhaps an actual url that could help ....

next an explanation: i tried a trick with this new movie. the other movies were encoded with a frame rate of one frame per second; which works really well when you are showing still images like this. this movie i wanted to add that scroll of the web "team". scrolling like this is not good at a frame rate of one frame per second -- no sir!

my idea was to encode what i had and then extract it again. in theory i would get frames with the frame rate included in the layer information. like when i made animated gifs, so long ago (before i knew right from wrong) i was then going to change the frame rate on the frames that were to include the scroll. the rest of the theory involved gap respecting what the frames said about the frame rate, but i did not get that far.

when i extracted the animation; even though i had encoded it using one frame per second, the extraction was closer to 24 frames per second. 1000 frames became 5000 (hmm, somehow the math is not working out on my recounting of this). even after all of that, the scrolling text is not so good, in my opinion. i have much to learn about video/animation. it took many hours to add the 5 or 10 seconds that i did add; with a stack like that.

this gap sure can eat your disc up.

carol

William Skaggs
2004-12-24 16:25:06 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

Carol wrote:

first a question. i watched a few buster keaton silent movies and tried to determine how long text should be displayed. apparently, this method failed me;

Well, there you go. Those movies were created at a time when movie projectors ran slower, so they weren't designed to play as quickly as they are usually shown nowadays.

:-)

Best, -- Bill


______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the CNPRC Email system at primate.ucdavis.edu

David Hodson
2004-12-25 01:11:00 UTC (over 19 years ago)

winners movie

William Skaggs wrote:

Well, there you go. Those movies were created at a time when movie projectors ran slower, so they weren't designed to play as quickly as they are usually shown nowadays.

Totally off-topic, but one of the strangest things I ever read was an early technical discussion in the SMPTE Journal about what speed movies should be projected at. Note that they had already decided what speed to film at - the question was how much faster the playback should be. For some reason, making them the same didn't seem to be an option.