May I suggest...

[MadGypsy]

Woops, I just realized the very middle frame (original animation) and the first frame are the same frame, so by deleting the animation layer and just letting the bottom layer show through it took another 40kb off. Now the file is 597 kb. The above link has been updated

as3 code (simple)
package{
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.events.Event;
public class main extends MovieClip {
private var forward:Boolean = true;
public function main() {
addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME,test);
}

private function test(e:Event) {
if (this.currentFrame==1) {
forward=true;
} else if (this.currentFrame==32){
forward=false;
}
if (!forward){
this.gotoAndStop(currentFrame-1);
}else{
this.play();
}
}
}
}

[MadGypsy]

Here ya go. I got it to 637kb with no visual loss. The trick was simple. I used the first frame of the animation as the bottom layer. on the top layer are all the animated frames with everything except the actual animated parts removed. Then I cut out the entire second half of the animation and wrote a small script that basically says "if this is at the end, play it backwards". Voila less than half the size.

Everything you need is here. http://freemarket.net16.net/qomisc/box.html

P.S. If you need me to ever do this again (with another image) just pm me. It took me 2 minutes. Also, if you use it, you dont have to mention me on the front page or whatever it was you said earlier in this thread. This was a no brainer and I'm happy to contribute.

[LambentHammerBurst]

I do agree and understand... but I really think this picture can be 5-10 times smaller there is something wrong with it.

Not without dropping the resolution and color depth. I myself tried to drop it and it's just simply a few kb's - nothing worthwhile. Dropping the color depth to 64 colors was a good decrease - BUT obviously a HUGE quality drop.

[StatiC]

as for speed i ordered the 15mb/s package from my isp... tho i never actually see that type of speed... the best i usually get is 1.6 1.8 mb/s on downloads...
but when i open the resource monitor on my task manager during streaming a video, i can get in excess of 6mb/s, once i thought i saw 10 for a second there... why cant it just be consistent ? bah !

[Baker]

Ya Baker I do agree and understand... but I really think this picture can be 5-10 times smaller there is something wrong with it.

I accept your offer.

Make the image smaller and more efficient in an image editor while maintaining the animation and I'll use yours in the news item and modify the news item giving you credit.

[StatiC]

extraterrestrials

i wouldnt be too worried about them
since they get 100Gb/second, all at the same time as they download torrent porn, and streaming how to cook flash videos...

edit: i wonder if aliens check out all the "bad salvia trip" videos on U-tube... I DO !!

[RangerC]

Anyway I'm a very positive/optimistic person... I guess I just had to put my "grain de sel" * by now

[Baker]

It's 1.3 MB because it is an animated GIF, which has several frames.

I wouldn't normally put such a phatty on the homepage, but considering the extraordinary amount of work Seven put into that project I made a one-time exception.

[LambentHammerBurst]

Page loads instantly for me.
For it being 1.3mb - it's a multi-frame animation - many of the others are simply 2 frames (lights on, lights off). This one really shows animation

[RangerC]

It sounds abit like "your car is not good because i can't really drive it while eating a pizza and washing my feet".
The today's standard should be 1.5mb/s.

[Q -Mark [0!0]]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns1yhoFTqJ0"]It's not the end of my world! Life goes on...[/ame]