how can I resize an animated GIF file using ImageMagick?
I want to resize such an animated GIF file do.gif 
If I do convert do.gif -resize 24x24! do-24.gif I get it resized in do-24.gif but not animated 
How to resize it right way to get the same animation?
imagemagick
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
add a comment |
I want to resize such an animated GIF file do.gif
If I do convert do.gif -resize 24x24! do-24.gif I get it resized in do-24.gif but not animated
How to resize it right way to get the same animation?
imagemagick
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
add a comment |
I want to resize such an animated GIF file do.gif
If I do convert do.gif -resize 24x24! do-24.gif I get it resized in do-24.gif but not animated
How to resize it right way to get the same animation?
imagemagick
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
I want to resize such an animated GIF file do.gif
If I do convert do.gif -resize 24x24! do-24.gif I get it resized in do-24.gif but not animated
How to resize it right way to get the same animation?
imagemagick
imagemagick
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
asked Feb 18 '13 at 17:39
zubazuba
1,03822045
1,03822045
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
first run:
convert do.gif -coalesce temporary.gif
then
convert -size <original size> temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
1
-coalesce"creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."
– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gifcan to this too
– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
|
show 6 more comments
I was looking for imagemagick solution as I am familiar with it, but in the end I went with @sam's suggestion of gifsicle (https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/). It did just what i wanted, no hassle.
Can optimise resulting file size in so many different ways, but I went with just reducing the size and reducing number of colors. Worked like a charm:
gifsicle --resize 48x48 --colors 16 original.gif > smaller.gif
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
add a comment |
-coalesce + -deconstruct
After -coalesce, you likely want to add a -deconstruct:
convert in.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
The root cause of the problem is that your input GIF was properly minimized: GIF allows the next frame to be just the modified rectangle from the previous one at an offset.
-coalesce then expands all the frames to the original size, which makes the resize work, but it does not re-compress the frames again as your input image: -deconstruct is needed for that!
Using the test data from this answer: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line we can see this clearly with identify:
$ identify out-convert.gif | head -n 3
out-convert.gif[0] GIF 1024x1024 1024x1024+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.020u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[1] GIF 516x516 1024x1024+252+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[2] GIF 515x520 1024x1024+248+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
$ convert out-convert.gif -resize 256x out.gif
$ identify out.gif | head -n 3
out.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+125+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[2] GIF 256x258 256x256+123+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x out-coalesce.gif
$ identify out-coalesce.gif | head -n 3
out-coalesce.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[2] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
$ identify out-deconstruct.gif | head -n 3
out-deconstruct.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[1] GIF 135x135 256x256+60+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[2] GIF 135x136 256x256+59+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out.gif:
out-coalesce.gif:
out-deconstruct.gif:
First, we see how to input file, out-convert.gif, was in fact compressed, since frame 2 is only 516x516 at offset 252+257, while the full sized frame 1 is 1024x1024.
Then, if we compare the three conversions:
out.gif: All frames are256x256or larger, and huge at about 5MiB, TODO why?
Visually incorrect, since those approximately
256x256frames have a non-zero offset, e.g.125+128for frame 2!
out-coalesce.gif: all frames are256x256and have the correct offset0+0.
Output looks visually correct, but the output file size is 2.0 MiB, which is larger than
out-deconstruct.gif
out-deconstruct.gif: compressed frames, final output size 1.9 MiB.
Not considerably smaller than
out-coalesce.gif, but I think this is just because the black black ground compresses really well, and it could be very significant in general.
ffmpeg and gifsicle
I also tried out the following commands:
ffmpeg -i out-convert.gif -vf scale=256:-1 out-ffmpeg-small.gif
gifsicle --resize 256x256 out-convert.gif > out-gifsicle.gif
and both produced an even smaller correctly looking 1.5 MiB output.
See also: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line
TODO: why can they make it smaller than convert? Are they just selecting better more minimal diff rectangles, or something else?
Tested in Ubuntu 18.10, ffpmeg 4.0.2-2, ImageMagick 6.9.10-8.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f257831%2fhow-can-i-resize-an-animated-gif-file-using-imagemagick%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
first run:
convert do.gif -coalesce temporary.gif
then
convert -size <original size> temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
1
-coalesce"creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."
– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gifcan to this too
– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
|
show 6 more comments
first run:
convert do.gif -coalesce temporary.gif
then
convert -size <original size> temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
1
-coalesce"creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."
– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gifcan to this too
– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
|
show 6 more comments
first run:
convert do.gif -coalesce temporary.gif
then
convert -size <original size> temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
first run:
convert do.gif -coalesce temporary.gif
then
convert -size <original size> temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
answered Feb 18 '13 at 18:12
phipsalabimphipsalabim
2,3201112
2,3201112
1
-coalesce"creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."
– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gifcan to this too
– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
|
show 6 more comments
1
-coalesce"creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."
– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gifcan to this too
– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
1
1
-coalesce "creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
-coalesce "creates a complete view of the animation at each point, a bit like a true film strip, rather than an animation sequence. Such a sequence, known as a Coalesced Animation is much easier to study, edit, modify and re-optimize."– sam
Aug 12 '13 at 19:26
28
28
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gif can to this too– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
gifsicle --resize 24x24 > do-24.gif can to this too– sam
Aug 14 '13 at 2:20
2
2
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
Note that the coalesced view is much larger than the optimized one (3.2 times in my test), and the resizing produces a coalesced image, which can also be larger than the original in file size (2.3 times in my test) even if the resolution is smaller. When I try resizing directly it looks fine and has a small file size, though maybe it just works for this image.
– endolith
Dec 27 '14 at 21:49
1
1
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
gifsicle produced a much better, optimized output for my use case. Thanks @sam!
– sj26
Jul 15 '16 at 8:43
4
4
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
convert temporary.gif -resize 24x24 smaller.gif works for me.,without specifying input size.
– AMB
Aug 21 '16 at 17:24
|
show 6 more comments
I was looking for imagemagick solution as I am familiar with it, but in the end I went with @sam's suggestion of gifsicle (https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/). It did just what i wanted, no hassle.
Can optimise resulting file size in so many different ways, but I went with just reducing the size and reducing number of colors. Worked like a charm:
gifsicle --resize 48x48 --colors 16 original.gif > smaller.gif
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
add a comment |
I was looking for imagemagick solution as I am familiar with it, but in the end I went with @sam's suggestion of gifsicle (https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/). It did just what i wanted, no hassle.
Can optimise resulting file size in so many different ways, but I went with just reducing the size and reducing number of colors. Worked like a charm:
gifsicle --resize 48x48 --colors 16 original.gif > smaller.gif
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
add a comment |
I was looking for imagemagick solution as I am familiar with it, but in the end I went with @sam's suggestion of gifsicle (https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/). It did just what i wanted, no hassle.
Can optimise resulting file size in so many different ways, but I went with just reducing the size and reducing number of colors. Worked like a charm:
gifsicle --resize 48x48 --colors 16 original.gif > smaller.gif
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
I was looking for imagemagick solution as I am familiar with it, but in the end I went with @sam's suggestion of gifsicle (https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/). It did just what i wanted, no hassle.
Can optimise resulting file size in so many different ways, but I went with just reducing the size and reducing number of colors. Worked like a charm:
gifsicle --resize 48x48 --colors 16 original.gif > smaller.gif
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:20
Peter PerháčPeter Perháč
1394
1394
add a comment |
add a comment |
-coalesce + -deconstruct
After -coalesce, you likely want to add a -deconstruct:
convert in.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
The root cause of the problem is that your input GIF was properly minimized: GIF allows the next frame to be just the modified rectangle from the previous one at an offset.
-coalesce then expands all the frames to the original size, which makes the resize work, but it does not re-compress the frames again as your input image: -deconstruct is needed for that!
Using the test data from this answer: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line we can see this clearly with identify:
$ identify out-convert.gif | head -n 3
out-convert.gif[0] GIF 1024x1024 1024x1024+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.020u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[1] GIF 516x516 1024x1024+252+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[2] GIF 515x520 1024x1024+248+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
$ convert out-convert.gif -resize 256x out.gif
$ identify out.gif | head -n 3
out.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+125+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[2] GIF 256x258 256x256+123+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x out-coalesce.gif
$ identify out-coalesce.gif | head -n 3
out-coalesce.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[2] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
$ identify out-deconstruct.gif | head -n 3
out-deconstruct.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[1] GIF 135x135 256x256+60+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[2] GIF 135x136 256x256+59+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out.gif:
out-coalesce.gif:
out-deconstruct.gif:
First, we see how to input file, out-convert.gif, was in fact compressed, since frame 2 is only 516x516 at offset 252+257, while the full sized frame 1 is 1024x1024.
Then, if we compare the three conversions:
out.gif: All frames are256x256or larger, and huge at about 5MiB, TODO why?
Visually incorrect, since those approximately
256x256frames have a non-zero offset, e.g.125+128for frame 2!
out-coalesce.gif: all frames are256x256and have the correct offset0+0.
Output looks visually correct, but the output file size is 2.0 MiB, which is larger than
out-deconstruct.gif
out-deconstruct.gif: compressed frames, final output size 1.9 MiB.
Not considerably smaller than
out-coalesce.gif, but I think this is just because the black black ground compresses really well, and it could be very significant in general.
ffmpeg and gifsicle
I also tried out the following commands:
ffmpeg -i out-convert.gif -vf scale=256:-1 out-ffmpeg-small.gif
gifsicle --resize 256x256 out-convert.gif > out-gifsicle.gif
and both produced an even smaller correctly looking 1.5 MiB output.
See also: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line
TODO: why can they make it smaller than convert? Are they just selecting better more minimal diff rectangles, or something else?
Tested in Ubuntu 18.10, ffpmeg 4.0.2-2, ImageMagick 6.9.10-8.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
add a comment |
-coalesce + -deconstruct
After -coalesce, you likely want to add a -deconstruct:
convert in.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
The root cause of the problem is that your input GIF was properly minimized: GIF allows the next frame to be just the modified rectangle from the previous one at an offset.
-coalesce then expands all the frames to the original size, which makes the resize work, but it does not re-compress the frames again as your input image: -deconstruct is needed for that!
Using the test data from this answer: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line we can see this clearly with identify:
$ identify out-convert.gif | head -n 3
out-convert.gif[0] GIF 1024x1024 1024x1024+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.020u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[1] GIF 516x516 1024x1024+252+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[2] GIF 515x520 1024x1024+248+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
$ convert out-convert.gif -resize 256x out.gif
$ identify out.gif | head -n 3
out.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+125+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[2] GIF 256x258 256x256+123+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x out-coalesce.gif
$ identify out-coalesce.gif | head -n 3
out-coalesce.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[2] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
$ identify out-deconstruct.gif | head -n 3
out-deconstruct.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[1] GIF 135x135 256x256+60+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[2] GIF 135x136 256x256+59+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out.gif:
out-coalesce.gif:
out-deconstruct.gif:
First, we see how to input file, out-convert.gif, was in fact compressed, since frame 2 is only 516x516 at offset 252+257, while the full sized frame 1 is 1024x1024.
Then, if we compare the three conversions:
out.gif: All frames are256x256or larger, and huge at about 5MiB, TODO why?
Visually incorrect, since those approximately
256x256frames have a non-zero offset, e.g.125+128for frame 2!
out-coalesce.gif: all frames are256x256and have the correct offset0+0.
Output looks visually correct, but the output file size is 2.0 MiB, which is larger than
out-deconstruct.gif
out-deconstruct.gif: compressed frames, final output size 1.9 MiB.
Not considerably smaller than
out-coalesce.gif, but I think this is just because the black black ground compresses really well, and it could be very significant in general.
ffmpeg and gifsicle
I also tried out the following commands:
ffmpeg -i out-convert.gif -vf scale=256:-1 out-ffmpeg-small.gif
gifsicle --resize 256x256 out-convert.gif > out-gifsicle.gif
and both produced an even smaller correctly looking 1.5 MiB output.
See also: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line
TODO: why can they make it smaller than convert? Are they just selecting better more minimal diff rectangles, or something else?
Tested in Ubuntu 18.10, ffpmeg 4.0.2-2, ImageMagick 6.9.10-8.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
add a comment |
-coalesce + -deconstruct
After -coalesce, you likely want to add a -deconstruct:
convert in.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
The root cause of the problem is that your input GIF was properly minimized: GIF allows the next frame to be just the modified rectangle from the previous one at an offset.
-coalesce then expands all the frames to the original size, which makes the resize work, but it does not re-compress the frames again as your input image: -deconstruct is needed for that!
Using the test data from this answer: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line we can see this clearly with identify:
$ identify out-convert.gif | head -n 3
out-convert.gif[0] GIF 1024x1024 1024x1024+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.020u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[1] GIF 516x516 1024x1024+252+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[2] GIF 515x520 1024x1024+248+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
$ convert out-convert.gif -resize 256x out.gif
$ identify out.gif | head -n 3
out.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+125+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[2] GIF 256x258 256x256+123+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x out-coalesce.gif
$ identify out-coalesce.gif | head -n 3
out-coalesce.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[2] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
$ identify out-deconstruct.gif | head -n 3
out-deconstruct.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[1] GIF 135x135 256x256+60+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[2] GIF 135x136 256x256+59+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out.gif:
out-coalesce.gif:
out-deconstruct.gif:
First, we see how to input file, out-convert.gif, was in fact compressed, since frame 2 is only 516x516 at offset 252+257, while the full sized frame 1 is 1024x1024.
Then, if we compare the three conversions:
out.gif: All frames are256x256or larger, and huge at about 5MiB, TODO why?
Visually incorrect, since those approximately
256x256frames have a non-zero offset, e.g.125+128for frame 2!
out-coalesce.gif: all frames are256x256and have the correct offset0+0.
Output looks visually correct, but the output file size is 2.0 MiB, which is larger than
out-deconstruct.gif
out-deconstruct.gif: compressed frames, final output size 1.9 MiB.
Not considerably smaller than
out-coalesce.gif, but I think this is just because the black black ground compresses really well, and it could be very significant in general.
ffmpeg and gifsicle
I also tried out the following commands:
ffmpeg -i out-convert.gif -vf scale=256:-1 out-ffmpeg-small.gif
gifsicle --resize 256x256 out-convert.gif > out-gifsicle.gif
and both produced an even smaller correctly looking 1.5 MiB output.
See also: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line
TODO: why can they make it smaller than convert? Are they just selecting better more minimal diff rectangles, or something else?
Tested in Ubuntu 18.10, ffpmeg 4.0.2-2, ImageMagick 6.9.10-8.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
-coalesce + -deconstruct
After -coalesce, you likely want to add a -deconstruct:
convert in.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
The root cause of the problem is that your input GIF was properly minimized: GIF allows the next frame to be just the modified rectangle from the previous one at an offset.
-coalesce then expands all the frames to the original size, which makes the resize work, but it does not re-compress the frames again as your input image: -deconstruct is needed for that!
Using the test data from this answer: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line we can see this clearly with identify:
$ identify out-convert.gif | head -n 3
out-convert.gif[0] GIF 1024x1024 1024x1024+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.020u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[1] GIF 516x516 1024x1024+252+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
out-convert.gif[2] GIF 515x520 1024x1024+248+257 8-bit sRGB 256c 16.7865MiB 0.030u 0:00.019
$ convert out-convert.gif -resize 256x out.gif
$ identify out.gif | head -n 3
out.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+125+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
out.gif[2] GIF 256x258 256x256+123+128 8-bit sRGB 256c 5.0479MiB 0.000u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x out-coalesce.gif
$ identify out-coalesce.gif | head -n 3
out-coalesce.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[1] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
out-coalesce.gif[2] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.97683MiB 0.010u 0:00.009
$ convert out-convert.gif -coalesce -resize 256x -deconstruct out-deconstruct.gif
$ identify out-deconstruct.gif | head -n 3
out-deconstruct.gif[0] GIF 256x256 256x256+0+0 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[1] GIF 135x135 256x256+60+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out-deconstruct.gif[2] GIF 135x136 256x256+59+61 8-bit sRGB 256c 1.87942MiB 0.010u 0:00.010
out.gif:
out-coalesce.gif:
out-deconstruct.gif:
First, we see how to input file, out-convert.gif, was in fact compressed, since frame 2 is only 516x516 at offset 252+257, while the full sized frame 1 is 1024x1024.
Then, if we compare the three conversions:
out.gif: All frames are256x256or larger, and huge at about 5MiB, TODO why?
Visually incorrect, since those approximately
256x256frames have a non-zero offset, e.g.125+128for frame 2!
out-coalesce.gif: all frames are256x256and have the correct offset0+0.
Output looks visually correct, but the output file size is 2.0 MiB, which is larger than
out-deconstruct.gif
out-deconstruct.gif: compressed frames, final output size 1.9 MiB.
Not considerably smaller than
out-coalesce.gif, but I think this is just because the black black ground compresses really well, and it could be very significant in general.
ffmpeg and gifsicle
I also tried out the following commands:
ffmpeg -i out-convert.gif -vf scale=256:-1 out-ffmpeg-small.gif
gifsicle --resize 256x256 out-convert.gif > out-gifsicle.gif
and both produced an even smaller correctly looking 1.5 MiB output.
See also: How to create a gif from JPEG images with the command line
TODO: why can they make it smaller than convert? Are they just selecting better more minimal diff rectangles, or something else?
Tested in Ubuntu 18.10, ffpmeg 4.0.2-2, ImageMagick 6.9.10-8.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
edited Jan 25 at 19:11
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
answered Dec 23 '18 at 18:43
Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
10.1k44750
10.1k44750
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f257831%2fhow-can-i-resize-an-animated-gif-file-using-imagemagick%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
