31–40 of 121 posts
It says "Spot the differences? :) There’s none." Really? The BPG is WAY worse, IMHO. It's immediately apparent. I noticed it with my eyes before I parsed the text.
Wow, this throws me back to the early 90s, when we would basically have the same discussions about JPEG vs GIF. At the time most graphics programs could open a GIF you downloaded with your modem, but if you wanted to view a JPEG you had to jump out to a separate program, and everyone said that as soon as there was native JPEG support no one would use GIF anymore.
If people said that then they were silly, because JPEG and GIF solve different problems. JPEG didn't displace GIF because JPEG doesn't actually do a good job of compressing the images that GIF is good at compressing. Note that once a format came along that was good at those, namely PNG, it did displace GIF pretty much entirely for the still-image use case.
It seems like a great replacement for animated GIFs.
How does this compare to FLIF? The responsive features of FLIF seem fantastic. http://flif.info/
Implementing an image format via JS is cool, but I'm not sure what the use-case is for this format that isn't already covered (and supported in browsers) by other formats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. For most platforms, you might even get decoding supp…
H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264.
If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a burden on users, when alternatives already exist?
Don't get me wrong, I totally acknowledge that we still have the issue of mp4 files not autoplaying on mobile browsers. However, once that is solved, I would avoid APNG and Gif, in favour of said video format.
Here's hoping that one day, BPG is adopted widely, so that I can forgo mp4 and APNG/Gif entirely for use cases that cover short animations for aesthetic reasons.
Albeit, I do admit, for the time being, I will resort to using mp4 and OGG on the desktop browser, and either a static image or APNG on the mobile browser.
edit: some clarification
>unresponsive script
>[continue execution] [stop]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps GIF wasn't intended for this use case? Oh right, it wasn't. There are plenty of video formats that are. That doesn't make them "GIF replacement".
Whether GIF was intended for this usecase or not (it wasn't, the GIF spec specifically calls it out as a bad idea [0]), it's overwhelmingly what it's used for in practice. Therefore anything that can displace GIF in this space is a replacement. [0] https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt > Animation - The Graphics Interchange Format is not intended as a platform for animation, even though it can be done in a…
Implementing an image format via JS is cool, but I'm not sure what the use-case is for this format that isn't already covered (and supported in browsers) by other formats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. For most platforms, you might even get decoding supp…
> [APNG] should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264. If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [APNG] should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264. If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a b…
Can H.264/H.265 do that in a lossless fashion?
And here is why it wont: >unresponsive script >[continue execution] [stop]
If we rejected every feature that began as mere polyfills, we wouldn't have the web that we have today.
Here's just a few examples: we would need images for rounded corners, Gif/Flash/JavaScript for animations, Cookies for storage, Flash for browser-based webcam calls, etc.