Why use gifsicle with imagemagick?
vitorgalvao opened this issue · 7 comments
Some other gif creation scripts also tend to use gifsicle, which is fine, but why use it when using imagemagick as well? That seems to me like one dependency too many, since imagemagick can also create and optimize gifs just as well.
I usually do just fine with a simple convert command. Is there any strong reason to require gifsicle?
Hey guys,
Admittedly it's an additional dependency, but gifsicle tends to create smaller files than ImageMagick on its own. I am happy to be proven wrong on this — it's been a while since I did an actual size comparison, but it averaged to about 20% difference IIRC.
Also, great to see the various improvements to the script. My only issue is that https://asciinema.org/api/asciicasts is now hard-coded as the base URL, so it's no longer possible to use the same script on alternative sites which sport the asciinema player.
Perhaps a switch on <asciinema_org_id|asciicast_player_url> to use asciinema.org if it's just a number but to use the given URL if it starts with http|https?
Perhaps a switch on
<asciinema_org_id|asciicast_player_url>to useasciinema.orgif it's just a number but to use the given URL if it starts withhttp|https?
Sure. I haven’t looked closely at the JS script yet, but I was under the impression the api URL was being used in part as a way to have a more barebones page and make it easier to get the relevant parts of the page.
To be clear (just so I have an idea when making the fix), when you mention
alternative sites which sport the asciinema player.
Do you mean any website that has the player embedded? And if so, does the JS script have any checks in places to abort cleanly if it is given a page that doesn’t have such a player?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant any alternative sites with an API URL like asciinema.org — presumably running a version of asciinema/asciinema.org or something similar.
Thanks @vitorgalvao 👍
So why both imagemagick and gifsicle are used?