Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

eek.ro

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#91

Post by acdha »

TD-Linux wrote: post #85
Nelson69 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do content providers have to pay certain royalties with h.264? I thought the players were free of royalties and the license was paid for encoded content. And then with h.265 I thought I heard that there were two different license pools with different licensing strategies. I'm not sure that meme generators have royalties very high on their list of concerns, the big hosts that host a lot of them might have some concern…

For H.264 it's the opposite (for web content), only the players need to pay royalties. For H.265, both need to pay royalties, which depend on the business model. The licensing terms are pretty much totally unsuited for usage as a still image format. And yes, there are multiple pools and you have to pay all of them.

The license terms for H.264 appear to require both encoder and decoder vendors to pay royalties once they ship over 100K units:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf

H.264 is similar for the MPEG pool:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.p...

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#92

Post by wahsd »

shanselman wrote: post #16

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.

Are you the same guy from the article comments?

Granted, the Author should have been clearer about it, but BPG's is not mean to replace MP4 even though he juxtaposed them, it's about BPG's potential replacement for GIF.

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#94

Post by Dylan16807 »

Grue3 wrote: post #19
mikeash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GIF is extremely lossy for this use case since they can't do 24-bit color. In addition to being unnecessarily gigantic, animated GIFs also look terrible for just about anything that isn't pixel art. GIF itself is a lossless format, but when you use it for stuff like this the whole process is super lossy.

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".

I can't believe you're downvoted so hard for reminding people of the thing gif is good at.

We already have 'short video clip' formats that are better than gif.

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#95

Post by CaptSpify »

JadeNB wrote: post #90
CaptSpify wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I view the need to hit the play button as the right user-experience. Sure, a user-defined option to turn that off would be cool, but I'd never use it. I wish GIFs had that option as well, actually

> I wish GIFs had that option as well, actually They do, in Firefox! http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_:_Tips_:_Animated_Images (I know this is really late, but HN has been really aggressive about "submitting too fast" lately, and a half hour's wait didn't convince it to let me try again.)

Sorry, I guess I'm missing it? Can you point it out to me? I see only play once, play always, and never play

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#96

Post by mwilcox »

kjsthree wrote: post #14

How does this compare to FLIF? The responsive features of FLIF seem fantastic. http://flif.info/

FLIF is based on context mixing so it's extremely slow but has an extremely high (lossless) compression ratio. It's designed for image archival and not for real-time streaming video. It does have some interlacing techniques for previewing the image in a lower resolution but really it's orders of magnitude slower than other image formats.

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#98

Post by maxst »

jobu wrote: post #32
mikeash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does anyone know why the APNG format was rejected by the PNG group? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG ) It seems like a great replacement for animated GIFs.

libpng is a reference implementation of the PNG format. They don't have to support every third-party extension.

But libpng provides callback methods for "unknown" chucks, so the application can read and handle them. So it's possible to process APNG with libpng.

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#99

Post by jason_s »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #68
Ace17 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not another BPG-like based on VP9, then?

Looks like FLIF can do animations as well. http://flif.info/animation.html

FLIF is encumbered by GPL which means it's not going to make it into any digital cameras.

Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

#100

Post by jason_s »

jaredcheeda wrote: post #42
kjsthree wrote: post #14

How does this compare to FLIF? The responsive features of FLIF seem fantastic. http://flif.info/

In the part where it says "Spot the difference" and everyone says "The BPG one looks worse". That's because BPG, even in "lossless" mode... is lossy. So you're taking a video with H.264 compression artifacts and recompressing it with HEVC artifacts. The quality can only go down. FLIF on the other hand is lossless, so the image would be truly identical (pixel for pixel). However the filesize will likely be much larger…

FLIF is encumbered by GPL, so it is unlikely to make its way into digital cameras.
Post reply on HN