Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I was curious about this "animated WebP" and how was it any different from plain webM video. Turns out it's a similar hack to webp as apng was to png, so completely different from webm.

    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    APNG was a hell of a lot better than GIF, it allowed lossless animated images with 32-bit colour, which wasn't offered by any other web image format at the time.
    No, it was offered by MNG, which pre-existed APNG

    Without digging up that old horse, I saw little value in "show the first frame" of APNG - if you want an animation, the first frame is practically useless. Even worse, it may give the user the impression it's supposed to be a static image, while a "missing support" box lets the user know it's supposed to be something else.

    Unlike what others said I watched presentations, videos etc and WebP is a lot like systemD or the Opus audio codec (and don't give me the apples/oranges shitty excuse) - it fits pretty much every usecase, is often (a lot) better and is pretty much free as in beer and porn and solves most problems like no other alternative does. When taken all of it's pros/cons together, just like with Opus/systemd (or even to a degree wayland) - it is the clear winner, though needless to mention - not perfect.
    I applaud you for the phrase "free as in porn"

    Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.

      Have you tried/installed systemd??

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by curaga View Post

        Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.
        What? All of those are from scratch, so you'd think the audio codec would take less time than the others. Just because it takes longer doesn't make it better or worse. Besides, systemd is actually awesome.

        I've also been tracking the Daala codec, every once in a while I'd compile it and try out the encoder. It's certainly doing very good for a codec from scratch that has only been in development for about a year: 2012-02-22 is the first commit but it said it was to import someone's Daala stuff, so it's probably around a year.

        But wait, this is about animated webp right? I should probably perform my own tests because the only one I saw, that had gif vs webp vs apng but using a gif source. It's one of the stupidest things to do in a test, even if it's file size. GIF is a lossy format and then they convert to a lossless format (Webp is both lossy and lossless)

        PNG's strength comes from being able to produce a small file, similar to how GIF can do it, where you basically tell it that the PNG can only have these colours selected. It didn't need all that extra information and it's still lossless if done right. The other strength is that PNG is basically the lossless image standard right now. Webp's strength comes from Google and everything that Google does. They make sure it is fast and small and gets the job done, like everything else. If I remember right it's based off TIFF or at least uses a TIFF wrapper.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
          But wait, this is about animated webp right? I should probably perform my own tests because the only one I saw, that had gif vs webp vs apng but using a gif source. It's one of the stupidest things to do in a test, even if it's file size. GIF is a lossy format and then they convert to a lossless format
          You only call that test "stupid" because you don't like that APNG seems to be winning there.

          Actually, for filesize comparison, such "gif vs webp vs apng" test makes perfect sense, because it ensures all 3 animations are identical. It's like comparing ZIP and RAR, you have to use identical set of files. Otherwise it's not fair.

          Even in their announcement on the Chromium Blog, google devs used the same approach, they took a rotating cube GIF and converted it (very lossy) into WebP using gif2webp tool. If you want to perform your own tests, you will probably use gif2webp as well.

          Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
          Webp's strength comes from Google and everything that Google does. They make sure it is fast and small and gets the job done, like everything else.
          You shouldn't blindly trust them. Test and verify.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            Without digging up that old horse, I saw little value in "show the first frame" of APNG - if you want an animation, the first frame is practically useless.
            That's like saying "thumbnails are useless" when you search for a certain animated gif on google images.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              No, it was offered by MNG, which pre-existed APNG
              Not on the web it didn't.

              Without digging up that old horse, I saw little value in "show the first frame" of APNG - if you want an animation, the first frame is practically useless. Even worse, it may give the user the impression it's supposed to be a static image, while a "missing support" box lets the user know it's supposed to be something else.
              Again that doesn't matter, as there wasn't any better alternative for animated pictures on the web. It's kind of embarrassing that we're still using an image format for animated images that's limited to a colour palette dictated by 90's hardware. If some aliens came to visit and saw how animated gifs are still the dominant animated image format on the web, they'd be laughing at humanity so hard.

              Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.
              Says you. Wayland is not perfect but it's better than anything else there is. X is just outdated, it's time to take it behind the shed and put it to rest...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by maxst View Post
                You only call that test "stupid" because you don't like that APNG seems to be winning there.
                The reason why I think it's stupid is that whenever you are trying to compare codes, you always want a lossless source otherwise the lossy source will seem to perform exceptionally well.

                I don't know why you think that I don't like aPNG. Not everyone has an agenda.

                As for the tests, why the heck would I use the gif2whatever tool when I specifically said that it's the biggest problem with their test?

                Regardless I want something better than gif to take its place.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                  As for the tests, why the heck would I use the gif2whatever tool when I specifically said that it's the biggest problem with their test?
                  Because you don't have a lot of choice here.

                  That's the one and only tool WebP developers provide that can create optimized animated WebP.

                  Unless you are willing to write your own tools...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    Not on the web it didn't.
                    Opera supported it, I used Opera - ergo it definitely existed on the web for me

                    That's like saying "thumbnails are useless" when you search for a certain animated gif on google images.
                    Not really, as the first frame of quite many animations is black. How is that of use?

                    Again that doesn't matter, as there wasn't any better alternative for animated pictures on the web. It's kind of embarrassing that we're still using an image format for animated images that's limited to a colour palette dictated by 90's hardware. If some aliens came to visit and saw how animated gifs are still the dominant animated image format on the web, they'd be laughing at humanity so hard.
                    I agree. There's multiple improved formats over GIF, but nothing can be used because no browser supports everything. It's a sad state for the web designers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Opera supported it, I used Opera - ergo it definitely existed on the web for me
                      Opera never supported MNG, they choose to support APNG instead.

                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Not really, as the first frame of quite many animations is black. How is that of use?
                      Go right now to google image search, and set the filter to "Search Tools -> Type -> Animated". Where are the black squares? Just a lot of first-frame thumbnails, which is very useful.

                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      I agree. There's multiple improved formats over GIF, but nothing can be used because no browser supports everything. It's a sad state for the web designers.
                      If only Chrome would just add APNG after Firefox and Opera agreed on it in 2008, the problem would be solved years ago.

                      For years, chrome devs kept saying "nobody wants apng", but if they truly believed that gifs are good enough for everybody, then why bother making their own animated format and that promote that gif2webp tool.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by maxst View Post
                        Opera never supported MNG, they choose to support APNG instead.
                        ? I certainly used it.

                        The wikipedia page says Opera used a plugin to do so. It's possible I had that installed.

                        If only Chrome would just add APNG after Firefox and Opera agreed on it in 2008, the problem would be solved years ago.

                        For years, chrome devs kept saying "nobody wants apng", but if they truly believed that gifs are good enough for everybody, then why bother making their own animated format and that promote that gif2webp tool.
                        Well, apng is non-standard, it was rejected for upstream libpng. MNG is standard, as is animated webp (awebp?).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by maxst View Post
                          Go right now to google image search, and set the filter to "Search Tools -> Type -> Animated". Where are the black squares? Just a lot of first-frame thumbnails, which is very useful.
                          I tried this, and there was one black square in each of the first three pages. The search was for "random".

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            Well, apng is non-standard, it was rejected for upstream libpng.
                            WebP is not standard either. But it doesn't matter. In open source world you can take software and extend/fork it without asking original authors for permission/approval to do so. Original authors' opinion is just that, an opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              I tried this, and there was one black square in each of the first three pages. The search was for "random".
                              So, first-frame thumbnails are useful in only 95% cases? That's pretty useful.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                                Well, apng is non-standard, it was rejected for upstream libpng. MNG is standard, as is animated webp (awebp?).
                                WebP is not "standard" either. But it doesn't matter. W3C is taking hand-off approach to the whole issue: "use whatever graphical formats you want, as long as your browser supports it".

                                As for libpng authors, in open source world you can take the software and extend/fork it without asking original authors for permission/approval to do so.

                                Original authors' opinion is just that, an opinion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X