Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

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

  • #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 X is just outdated, it's time to take it behind the shed and put it to rest...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