Originally posted by Blaine:
<strong>Using the exact same sequence of bitmaps, both 400x200:
<a href="http://neogeo.myeva.net/mprize2.swf" target="_blank">Flash</a> 59.6kb
<a href="http://neogeo.myeva.net/mysteryprize.gif" target="_blank">Animated Gif</a> 30.3kb.
The Flash one may fill your screen totally, the movie is still 400x200 though.
Flash should usually be used with vector art whenever possible. Shockwave is more the bit/bytemap app.
Although that paradigm does seem to be shifting as Shockwave is losing namebrand popularity to Flash, Director feels like it's becoming less and less a web product. Though the new 3D functions are nothing less than awesome. I thought T3D was the shit when it came out. The Havok engine makes my old portfolio look like trash!! ha ha ha </strong><hr></blockquote>
Point taken.
I would rephrase that Flash is completely compatible with bitmap images, and gives you some control that you would not have otherwise - masks, etc. but an animated GIF is more efficient. If your final output is to be an animated GIF, Flash still may be your choice for the authoring tool and the GIF be your output. I guess it's the difference between Flash the tool and Flash the file type.
Heh, I said "Flash the tool"
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Briggs ]</p>