I'v seen a few threads about animation in CS3, here's a vidio tutorial from the nice guys at:
http://www.watchandlearnphotoshop.com/index.php
i'm too good to you lot, i'm still running PS7 and PSCS2

http://www.hallcross.co.uk/cs3amimation.html

i noticed he changed the frame timing one frame at a time, if you go to the dropdown menu on the animation window you can 'select all'

***Cricket Noise***

Does CS2 have animations as well?

CS2 has image-ready, CS3 dont, it's all done in photoshop, you can now edit video in there too, if anyone wants the tut's for that????

I just upgraded to CS3 extended and been working on videos. This programs does some really cool things! Can't wait to get good enough to show off some work

Please....... those of ya trying to do GIF's ....let me know what ya think of them (time consumption, extra labor etc involved) as opposed to a standard still image entry ....I'm quite curious to see what the general opinion is!!!!!.......Thanks in advance!!

~5150

Imageready lets you edit Quicktime videos. Used to fool around with those back when.

I'm sure you know it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Some things are straightforward and simple, like this one: http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/129142/bad-hiding-place-gif.html--fairly easy and fun to assemble. It didn't require any fancy timing, nor did the underlying images require a lot of manipulation. Fritzing with the perspective on the "doors" was the hardest part. Came out okay, I think.

My Michelangelo thing was a lot more time consuming--especially when I made an obvious error midway through (Granulated picked up on it). It was fun until I went to fix it. I ended up with too many frames with too many changes, which meant it ended up somewhat choppy: http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/129582/david--gif.html

A couple of my GIF's involved swinging objects. Working out the geometry on those can be challenging and a time-sucker, but those are fun, too.

One I spent an unGodly amount of time on--shot my own images, screwed around with a movement-through-tunnel effect for more than eight hours, massaged eight backgrounds out of the source image, and lost most of my hair. The result was not all that good.

I have one in an upcoming contest that involves moving shadows on a cylindrical surface. I know I didn't get it right. I don't think I could get it right in less than thirty-two frames, but the size limit here ruled that out. I ended up with sixteen frames and a choppy result.

I guess I would say that at my skill level, GIF's are no different than static images. Some in both categories are a breeze to complete; others suck time and energy. I find that with GIF's and static pieces, I often put several hours work into an image and give it the heave-ho, either because the result clearly will be a pile of crap, or because the effort required to achieve the desired result is more than I'm willing to expend.

I should mention, too, that you are a frickin' GIF master. Back in March '07 when I found myself here, I voted on your suicidal groom piece. It's a classic. You've done a lot of really fine work. The avatar catapault piece, the water ski bit, and your recent claw win come to mind immediately. Really, really good stuff.

Speaking of avatars, yours cracks me up.

--twk

Thanks for the input and so many kind words!!!!...I'm flattered!

~5150

I've got a really bad habit of editing small details in a gif that are covered up or washed out by compression. The last gif I made for Blue's viking chop was a perfect example. I spent more time rebuilding the damage to the castle than I did putting the eight frames together. The effort was barely noticible.

Oh how I can relate to that !!!!!



~5150