Animated avatars from Starcraft II

I don't know how to make my own, and I just googled Doom GIFs.

Sue me.

 

Colours are a bit messed up but it's the best I can bring out of gifs.

The Zer'atai DT is a bit tricky, I'll do that some other time.

 

Hooray for the 4 image/post limit!

Here's the Zer'atai DT, yet again quite low quality. The problem with these avatars, as opposed to in-game footages of units, is that they contain much more colours. Now, since the .gif file type only supports 256 colours at most, colour coding turns out to be very picky which results in dropping colours. I think the avatars are just about acceptable though.

 

when i try to add the marine it says that the, "Remote file is too large." Any ideas?

 

Maybe the file is too large? You need to decrease it by either reducing resolution or the number of frames in an image editor that handles animated gifs.

 

+=Rave!?

 

is the second picture the mutalisk? The multiple eyes looks odd/interesting.

 

AFAIK in SC the portrait showed its butt (although why the teeth?), while in SC2 it shows its head. And the multiple eyes are obviously needed because they make Zerg more menacing. NOT.

 

I am only 'fraid of multiple eyes when they look appalling in combination with the rest, and seriously - this is not the case. The new Muta looks great and the numerous eyes fit with the image IMO.

 

I can't seem to get the SWF Catcher for firefox working. I can't find anything that lets me save the SWF from starcraft2.com.

 

I don't save the swf file so I can't help you there.

 

Hey kuvasz, if you are having problems with the 265 colour limit of the gif format, then why not try to use animated png instead? Or is that still as messy as it was when I first saw it being used?

 

I no longer have problems. It wasn't actually the number of colours but how the converter classified the colours, which seemed to me purely random but since then I've found a much better converter and the gifs look nice and crisp. As for using mngs, I don't know what you mean by messy. However, they're as good as dead because they came much later than gif, at around when swf was created, which is of course superior. So they never became popular and most browser don't even know wtf they are.

 

That's what I meant by messy. They won't show up properly on most browsers, but it supports pretty much all the colours swf has. I still think they are better then gif if more people had used it. Just the same with static gif images vs 8-bit png images. 8-bit png uses about half the space of a gif, but looks just as good with small, low colour images.

 

You sure about the "half the space a gif occupies" thing? There is no smaller format than gif, no matter what resolution we're talking about. Or so I've experienced and as far as I understand the theory behind the two formats. Gif is as basic as you can go as far as image display is concerned.

 

Hmm, I thought it was pretty logical. If you look at how good the copression rates of both formats are, then png is better. I am not saying it gives smaller files at full colour, but if you use 8 bit with png it should be even smaller then gif. In theory. I might test it properly sometime, but my computer with photoshop is out of order. -the fan is broken, and I am not swapping hard disks just for this, have not used photoshop in quite a while anyway-

 

HOLY HECK THANKS. I can put them on my website now.

 

Just be sure to give credit to where you got it from. And you could at least have asked first. Not very nice to Kuvasz and the rest of the people who put effort into this. :/

 

wow cool! i really like those!

 

Ok, but can someone else help me then?