You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What I miss from switching from ffmpeg is the creation of a specific color palette which makes the result not show the typical compression artefacts and is much smaller.
Here is an example done with ffmpeg:
Create a palette image from the video: ffmpeg -y -i in.mov -vf fps=5,palettegen palette.png
=>
Convert into a GIF using the palette: ffmpeg -i in.mov -i palette.png -filter_complex "fps=5,paletteuse" out.gif
Here are the Results
File processed by ffmpeg (FPS: 5) - Size: 29.375 Byte
I doubt we'll add advanced settings like specifying a custom palette. However, there might be a way to improve the quality/size by default for this kind of recording. @kornelski would have to comment on this though. I don't know how the algorithm works.
gifski always picks high quality palette for every single frame, which makes it better looking than ffmpeg's solution which has one (and not so high quality) palette for average of all frames.
That does cost in file size, but gifski is about maxing quality at the cost of totally ignoring how that balloons file size.
The quality slider enables lossy compression which is effective for natural video-like content.
Great App 👏!
What I miss from switching from
ffmpeg
is the creation of a specific color palette which makes the result not show the typical compression artefacts and is much smaller.Here is an example done with
ffmpeg
:ffmpeg -y -i in.mov -vf fps=5,palettegen palette.png
=>
ffmpeg -i in.mov -i palette.png -filter_complex "fps=5,paletteuse" out.gif
Here are the Results
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: