A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote on 28 May 2014 07:52:11 ...
A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet
Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it
in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403
error (access denied). Are GIF animations supposed to run at a
particular speed, or does each browser make its own decision?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2014 07:52:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Looks like Wembley Park to me. It's clearly a short clip as there are
no Chiltern trains whizzing past on the right. Oh and one train is on
a trip to or from the depot using the flyunder.

Yes, I agree, it must be Wembley Park. Although it's a bit speeded up, it's
still only a few seconds worth of real time, and Chiltern trains aren't
very frequent on the Amersham branch.

In message , at 10:24:12 on Wed, 28 May
2014, Richard J. remarked:
Firefox won't show it at all;

Mine does.

it gives a code 403 error (access denied). Are GIF animations supposed
to run at a particular speed, or does each browser make its own
decision?

There's a delay between frames programmed in, but different browsers
interpret it differently[1] although there seems to be general agreement
that setting the delay to less than 0.02sec (which is 1/50sec) will
cause all browsers to ignore it, which isn't that surprising because
that's the refresh rate of many monitors, and changing the image faster
than that will simply lose frames.

For this particular animation, it's entirely possible that they *want*
the "speeded up" effect.

[1] eg by rounding up anything below 0.06 sec to .10 sec
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting:


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...anigif_enhance
d-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Wembley Park looking south, with the first train heading for Neasden via the
dive-under?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2014 07:52:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that
I saw illustrating an article about commuting:


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...anigif_enhance
d-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Looks like Wembley Park to me. It's clearly a short clip as there are
no Chiltern trains whizzing past on the right. Oh and one train is on
a trip to or from the depot using the flyunder.

Yes, I agree, it must be Wembley Park. Although it's a bit speeded up,
it's still only a few seconds worth of real time, and Chiltern trains
aren't very frequent on the Amersham branch.

Just long enough for up and down trains on Met & Jubilee plus the Met to
Neasden Depot. Works fine for me in Firefox.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 28 May 2014 10:24:12 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote on 28 May 2014 07:52:11 ...
A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet
Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it
in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403
error (access denied).

That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with
the wrong link. If you make sure the full URL is used, with no spaces,
it works fine in Firefox. It takes about 1.5 secs.

In message , at 12:03:35 on
Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet
Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it
in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403
error (access denied).

That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with
the wrong link.

The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get
displayed in IE and Chrome?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:03:35 on
Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet
Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it
in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403
error (access denied).

That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with
the wrong link.

The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get
displayed in IE and Chrome?

Look carefully, and I bet you spot a space in it. Maybe IE and Chrome auto
join the strings?

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:03:35 on
Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en
hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif

Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet
Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it
in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403
error (access denied).

That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with
the wrong link.

The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get
displayed in IE and Chrome?

Afraid it was, Roland. Character 0x0317:

000002c0 75 74 20 63 6f 6d 6d 75 74 69 6e 67 3a 0a 0a 3c |ut commuting:..|
000002d0 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 73 33 2d 65 63 2e 62 75 7a |http://s3-ec.buz|
000002e0 7a 66 65 64 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 74 61 74 69 63 2f |zfed.com/static/|
000002f0 32 30 31 34 2d 30 35 2f 65 6e 68 61 6e 63 65 64 |2014-05/enhanced|
00000300 2f 77 65 62 64 72 30 33 2f 32 33 2f 37 2f 61 6e |/webdr03/23/7/an|
00000310 69 67 69 66 5f 65 6e 0a 68 61 6e 63 65 64 2d 62 |igif_en.hanced-b|
00000320 75 7a 7a 2d 32 39 38 37 30 2d 31 34 30 30 38 34 |uzz-29870-140084|
00000330 33 33 36 36 2d 38 2e 67 69 66 3e 0a 2d 2d 20 0a |3366-8.gif.-- .|
00000340 52 6f 6c 61 6e 64 20 50 65 72 72 79 0a |Roland Perry.|

Browser treatment of a split URL seems to vary, even (in at least one
browser I have) between different methods of invoking the URL.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996