Looking for feedback on image format.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 13:30:15 pm

For some of the more esoteric varieties I have, I'm thinking of switching to using animated GIF to be able to point out the relevant points on the stamp. The only potential problem is that GIF has a color palette of only 255 colors, as opposed to millions for JPG. That means that on images with more varied colors, it could skew the color/shading somewhat.

On a web page there are different options, using CSS or Javascript to do image slight-of-hand, but for posting on message boards and giving to people, the GIF format is nice as it is completely self-contained.

I invite your feedback on the image presentation and timing. Does this type of display work for you?

FYI, it is a scarce T13a complete double transfer that I cherrypicked this past weekend. The stamp is very beat up, but it only cost 40 cents.

Global Administrator · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 14:05:25 pm

Very striking!

I am confused at why it needs to be an animated gif tho?

The flashing red arrows distract me .. if they were solid arrows on a flat image they'd serve just as well or better surely?

pookie9121 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 14:10:57 pm

Global Administrator wrote:

Very striking!

I am confused at why it needs to be an animated gif tho?

The flashing red arrows distract me .. if they were solid arrows on a flat image they'd serve just as well or better surely?

I agree. Maybe an arrow free image next to it would also be nice.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 14:22:57 pm

A single static image means the arrows obscure detail, and they take away from the presentation of just the stamp itself.

Two separate images could be done, but depending on the size, that could mean a lot of scrolling; viewing the images together could be troublesome.

On a web page I can do it so that the image displays normally and when you hover your mouse over the image the arrows appear and stay there. Move your mouse away and the arrows go away. That's the best of all options, but unfortunately that's not portable and not usable on message boards.

I'm probably looking for a perfect solution where none exists.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Dan

Allanswood · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 14:37:41 pm

Make the arrows smaller and tone down the colour?
Use less arrows as aren't they all saying the same thing - double print?

You could use a light green (or blue or beige) arrow and multiple dots to indicate further areas of double print and be less distracting that way?

When they are bright red and flashing they are "screaming", here, here.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 14:45:49 pm

Allanswood wrote:

Use less arrows as aren't they all saying the same thing - double print?

Actually it's not the same as a double impression (I have those as well). On a double or triple transfer, only certain design elements may be doubled. So depending on the variety, more or fewer arrows might be needed.

Quote:

When they are bright red and flashing they are "screaming", here, here.

Well that's the point really.

Allanswood · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 18:16:01 pm

Yes, fine, but it's rather LOUD!
When it could be more "gentle". :idea:

muruk · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 21:18:51 pm

Global Administrator wrote:

Very striking!

I am confused at why it needs to be an animated gif tho?

The flashing red arrows distract me .. if they were solid arrows on a flat image they'd serve just as well or better surely?

Same here.

mikeg · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 23:30:23 pm

I like it.

Much better than than trying to describe it in words.

The only drawback is- you will have to put up a tutorial on how to create these

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 23:39:05 pm

It's early morning here and I'm at work. When I get home tonight I'll try some alternate versions with different arrow colors.

As far as creating these, it's all done within Adobe Photoshop using the animation palette. Very easy actually.

phrag99 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 23:55:53 pm

Who/what is it for? I guess it's not just for your personal use, or you wouldn't seek our advice. So.....

I like the bright colour, because I can see it! I have colour blindness induced by medical treatment and often do not see muted colours. This is great. Not so convinced about the speed of flashing - perhaps it could be slowed down? What colour arrows would you use on a red stamp? Could you try an example of black arrows, just for me, please? I will try something similar, myself, I think, but I am a computer idiot. How long would each image take to produce, initially, would you think?

Allanswood · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 00:04:26 am

mikeg wrote:

I like it.

Much better than than trying to describe it in words.

The only drawback is- you will have to put up a tutorial on how to create these

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30928&hilit=animated+gif+avatar

Kainnikanada · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 00:11:12 am

Your image conjures up a dimly lit motel room with the iconic neon sign flashing through the open window as a breeze rustles the sheer curtains...ad infinitum.

I suggest slightly contrasting arrows, selectively joining shifted portions of the stamp. The observer could then deduce where the remaining duplication is found on the stamp.

There is no need to highlight all duplication - becomes somewhat redundant. Too many arrows not only overpower the purpose but also insult the observer's ability to spot all traces.

pitronix · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 00:26:26 am

I also think that animation frequency should be bit lower and maybe some other color instead of red (it is to obtrusive).

As about GIF format it is perfectly OK for most stamps since there is really no need for more colors than GIF offers (did it many times for large res scans of engraved stamps and it works perfectly size wise and doesn't do much "damage" to color).

Kainnikanada · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 00:45:56 am

pitronix wrote:

I also think that animation frequency should be bit lower and maybe some other color instead of red (it is to obtrusive).

As an alternative to "flashing" arrows wouldn't ones that fade in and out be less obtrusive allowing the observer's brain the opportunity to adjust to or to visually digest what's occuring.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:27:39 pm

Ok, I'm home now. :lol:

I tweaked things a bit. A darker red, and as recommended rather than flashing, a fade-in and fade out, with a longer time spent at the point where the arrows are fully visible and when none are visible.

Also, the file size is about half that of the first image.

Allanswood · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:32:57 pm

So if I suggested to actually colour fade in with another colour the actual printed pattern as well?
In perhaps black or yellow. So the actual "flaw" lines also appear as the arrows brighten up?

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:47:15 pm

Sure, that could be done, but that would actually require artistic talent on my part. :lol:

That's also a bit more time consuming than I'd probably want to go personally.

The other thing that you can do is if the stamp has several different aspects that you want to point out, you could fade the first one in and out, then the second, then the third, and so on, and then loop back to the beginning.

Of course that would create more frames and increase the file size.

I could also increase the number of frames in the fades, thus making them smoother and less jerky, but again that would make the file bigger.

Trying to find a good balance between function and bloat.

Little Fred · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 13:04:38 pm

For those who don't like the flashing: the following works on a Mac (can't tell about Windows machines).

If you drag the image out of the browser window onto your desk-top you get a gif file with two images (more in the recent example of the fading arrows). You can then open the file in Preview and flip between the two (or more) images at your own pace.

mikeg · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 13:45:30 pm

Revenuecollector- That is really nice, and easy on the eyes too

Greg- Thanks for the link to the other thread. That saves revenue having to do a lot of explaining :lol:

Rog · **Posted:** Sun Oct 30, 2011 00:41:37 am

Have to say I think the fixed arrows are better. How about semi-transparent arrows ?

mozzerb · **Posted:** Sun Oct 30, 2011 07:23:20 am

revenuecollector wrote:

Ok, I'm home now. :lol:

I tweaked things a bit. A darker red, and as recommended rather than flashing, a fade-in and fade out, with a longer time spent at the point where the arrows are fully visible and when none are visible.

Also, the file size is about half that of the first image.

Much better!

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 05:19:06 am

Allanswood wrote:

So if I suggested to actually colour fade in with another colour the actual printed pattern as well?
In perhaps black or yellow. So the actual "flaw" lines also appear as the arrows brighten up?

I took your suggestion to heart and fiddled around with this, and I came up with a solution that doesn' require me to actually be artistic. :lol:

It basically involves taking the area of the stamp that has the feature that needs to be highlighted, changing its primary color and then animating to and from that color.

I like it over the previous methods because in my opinion it eliminated the need for arrows completely.

What say ye all? Do you like the approach below better or the one above?

(And here's one on a different stamp.)

phrag99 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 06:17:21 am

Aughh!
Much prefer the arrows.

norvic · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 07:06:07 am

For those who don't like the flashing-magenta you could use white, especially on these stamps which have tinted paper (I don't know whether it is coloured paper or just gets that way from the ink, but either way...)

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:19:02 am

phrag99 wrote:

Aughh!
Much prefer the arrows.

Ok, let's try this one. Same effect, but a bit more subdued in color.

Kainnikanada · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:37:01 am

Almost works. ...but your new version still doesn't tell a story.

The highlighted area is not any more meaningful than the arrows.

Even the arrows, that pointed to something(?), really did not add to the image notwithstanding the fade feature was definitely less harsh on the viewer's eyes.

RE: previous example.

Could you use the arrows in a different manner? I suggest the tail at the one part of the stamp and the head at the doubled part - indicating where the duplication can be found.

Or a double-headed arrow tieing selected duplicated parts.

You do not have to annotate every point of duplication - once the viewer sees what is happening they should be able to deduce how much duplication is apparent.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:12:12 am

Kainnikanada wrote:

I suggest the tail at the one part of the stamp and the head at the doubled part - indicating where the duplication can be found.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

Kainnikanada · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:32:32 am

revenuecollector wrote:

Kainnikanada wrote:

I suggest the tail at the one part of the stamp and the head at the doubled part - indicating where the duplication can be found.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

Here's an abbreviated attempt. The partially duplicated area is visually tied to its counterpart on the entire stamp.

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:37:58 am

Ahh, I see. Thanks.

That approach works for this particular type of variety, but not others (scratched plates, short transfers, etc.) where there is an area of the stamp that needs to be highlighted/indicated, but doesn't necessarily correspond to another area of the stamp.

gringo · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 18:45:24 pm

Well done. Very technically creative image. I have no idea why some are being so pedantic. It demonstrates specifically what it's meant to. There's no pleasing some people... :roll:

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 23:52:20 pm

From posting here and on several other boards, people are all over the map as to which format is preferable:

1. Arrows (with fade. the first iteration with flashing arrows is right out)
2. Blocks
3. Make the actual doubling be what animates (far too labor intensive to use on an ongoing basis; also I don't trust my artistic abilities to make them look consistently good)
4. Just show 2 static images, 1 with and 1 without arrows
5. Use a CSS rollover instead (not portable, won't work on message boards)

For those who have issues with GIF's limited color palette, color depth or accuracy are not what these images are meant to convey. I don't plan to use GIF to replace the images on my site. For a reference page on varieties (or a message board post about a variety), however, where the point is to show the specific diagnostic areas for a given variety, the GIF format is perfect.

At the moment I'm leaning towards going back to the arrows with the fade, but perhaps using an arrow color other than red (yellow perhaps?) so that people with colorblindness can still utilize the images.

Allanswood · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:07:36 am

For time and the best compromise I think the more subdued fade in/out of the arrows is the way to go. It's a guide to what's happened and not a smack in the face!

I'd have to ask a colour blind person, but won't they see the arrow appear anyway?

I still don't see the need for 1,000 arrows though. Just a few at pleasing angles to guide the viewer. Let the viewer notice the other areas as they realise what you're talking about.

But, if I was going the more "intensive" route (I don't see it taking much more time than puting 100 arrows everywhere though!), and if you are only showing rarer images, then I would have been tempted to copy and layer over the top (as you've done aready), erase all the image you don't want to show (that's most of the stamp itself), ignore any arrows ending up with just the extra print error and then invert the image which will show it's (reversed colour) copy a few layers to lighten each and save the GIF.

Erasing is easy, you can be a little rough and ready (if you not that artisitic!), but then only the "what you are looking for" ink will fade in, highlighting not arrows or blocks but just gives the "OH look at all that extra print" areas for the viewer to see.

Skippy · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:25:50 pm

IMO the original red arrows in post one are fine.
They need to be off for 6 seconds (start), then on for 6 seconds ... repeat

It's the short timing gap that is distracting, not the bright colour.

same principals apply when you are running a slide show, if each image is longer than 6 seconds people get bored (unless there is audio explaining the picture, or some sort of warp changeover between pictures to add interest). Shorter than 6 and they haven't taken the whole image in and feel rushed/distracted.

my 2c worth :wink:

Skippy · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:32:14 pm

phrag99 wrote:

I like the bright colour, because I can see it! I have colour blindness induced by medical treatment and often do not see muted colours. This is great. Not so convinced about the speed of flashing - perhaps it could be slowed down? ?

Just had a closer look at the replies and see that phrag mentioned timing speed already.
I agree ! :wink:

revenuecollector · **Posted:** Sun Nov 06, 2011 16:45:26 pm

When all was said and done, I opted to go back to static images, instead using arrows with some depth to them to make them stand out. Also, for people suffering from colorblindness, I did away with using red entirely, using yellow for the arrow color.

Page in question (still in its infancy):

http://www.revenue-collector.com/varieties/

-Dan


*Click For Our Newest Issues*	*Click for our Current Auction*	Internet Auctions-Buy & Sell Stamps	Melbourne 2013 - May 10-15

Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum

Looking for feedback on image format.

Who is online