Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolved conflict to merge giflossy #97

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Resolved conflict to merge giflossy #97

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

saurabheights
Copy link

@saurabheights saurabheights commented Apr 22, 2017

This PR addresses my previous comment at #16 . I have added resolution to merge conflict and also tested the new changes for both lossy by pornel and other changes such as ignore gif corruption(--ignore-errors) by kohler.

@kohler - Please could you review and merge this branch.
@pornel - The only change needed was for LOSSY_OPT, changed to 380 to prevent conflict with RESIZE arguments. Added you to comment on, whether anything else is needed for lossy compression.

kornelski and others added 4 commits October 11, 2016 18:51
--lossy option that allows inexact match against LZW dictionary,
which improves compression ratio.
Lossy matching does a bit of 1-dimensional dithering.

This is a very basic implementation that does recursive search of dictionary nodes.

write_compressed_data contains some duplicated code,
because the lossy search function needs to use less optimized code (ignores imageline),
although this probably could be refactored a bit.

The results are pretty good:
— Original: 3.3MB
— Lossy: 1.25MB

Based on gifsicle which implements lossy LZW compression.
It can reduce animgif file sizes by 30%—50% at a cost of some dithering/noise.
— https://pornel.net/lossygifhttps://github.com/pornel/giflossy

Closed: #16
@kornelski
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks. I've updated my PR with it

@lutoma
Copy link

lutoma commented Mar 16, 2018

So it looks like now it's been four years since the initial pull request to add this, and another year since this one with the resolved merge conflict, with no feedback from the maintainers. Is it safe to assume this project is effectively dead?

@midevnull
Copy link

midevnull commented Jan 30, 2019

@kohler Why isn't this PR merged?

@mreinstein
Copy link

I would really love this feature to be merged

@kohler
Copy link
Owner

kohler commented Apr 18, 2019

This feature has been merged. Thanks to @kornelski and @saurabheights.

@kohler kohler closed this Apr 18, 2019
@mreinstein
Copy link

@kohler thanks for merging this! Are you planning to make another release (maybe 1.92) ?

@kohler
Copy link
Owner

kohler commented Apr 18, 2019

Yes, I've just released 1.92!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants