views:

39

answers:

3

I have 35 pictures taken from a stationary camera aimed at a lightbox in which an object is placed, rotated at 10 degrees in each picture. If I cycle through the pictures quickly, the image looks like it is rotating.

If I wished to 'rotate' the object in a browser but wanted to transmit as little data as possible for this, I thought it might be a good idea to split the picture into 36 pictures, where 1 picture is any background the images have in common, and 35 pictures minus the background, just showing the things that have changed.

Do you think this approach will work? Is there a better route? How would I achieve this in photoshop?

A: 

Hmm you'd probably have to take a separate picture of just the background, then in the remaining pictures, use Photoshop to remove the background and keep only the object. I guess if the pictures of the background have transparency in the place where the background was this could work.

How are you planning to "rotate" this? Flash? JavaScript? CSS+HTML? Is this supposed to be interactive or just a repeating movie? Do you have a sample of how this has already been done? Sounds kinda cool.

FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Thanks - that's a good idea - it may be possible to take a picture of the background, I hadn't thought about that. If I did have a background picture like this, how could I achieve this in photoshop, and in a semi-automated fashion, do you know?Planning to rotate through javascript/css/html - a div with a background then most likely img tags, perhaps changing z-index dynamically. Essentially I want the best user experience so they don't have to wait.
thenerd
A: 

If you create a multiple frame animated GIF in Photoshop you can control the quality of the final output, including optimization that automatically converts the whole sequence to indexed color. The result is that your background, though varied, will share most of the same color space, and should be optimized such that it won't matter if it differ slightly in each frame. (Unless your backgrounds are highly varied between photos, though by your use of a light box, they shouldn't be.) Photoshop will let you control the overall output resolution, and color remapping, which will affect the final size.

Update: Adobe discontinued ImageReady in Photoshop CS3+, I am still using CS2 so I wasn't aware of this until someone pointed it out.

JYelton
Of course, if you want to use Flash or something else, you can still optimize each frame in IR, but I don't think I'd go to the trouble of clipping the object out of every photo. You should be able to use the magic wand with a proper tolerance, feather the edge a little, and do some adjustments to force the background to lose some of its dithering and speckles which are counterproductive to compression.
JYelton
Unfortunately what I didn't mention originally is that I need to give the user control so i need to be able to switch the frames by user control, so an animated gif wouldn't work. However imageready is something I hadn't thought of, I wonder whether it could be applied to my problem. Thanks!
thenerd
Best of luck - animated GIF's are kind of an ancient ugly thing these days, anyway! But IR may still be helpful.
JYelton
ImageReady? Gosh, I thought Photoshop cs3+ had an Animation toolbar?
Neurofluxation
You're right, it was discontinued. Adobe included its functionality in Photoshop CS3 which I didn't realize. I'm still using CS2. I will update the answer.
JYelton
A: 

Unless The background is much bigger than the gif in the foreground i doubt that you would benefit greatly from using separate transparent images. Even if they are smaller in size,

Would the difference be large enough to improve the speed, taken into consideration the average speed with which pages are loaded?

Rakoon