271–280 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why we can't use the IMG tag for video and the VIDEO tag for images. They should be unified, with all the same media formats supported. IMG would autoplay, would not have sound, would loop, and would not have controls. VIDEO would be the opposite. For something like a plain JPG or PNG file, it just shows the one frame. Animated GIF files would of course benefit from the controls. The same should go for un…
> IMG would autoplay, would not have sound, would loop, and would not have controls. Why do you hate my phone battery so much?
Your average smartphone can play 1080p video without breaking a sweat, not so with 1080p gifs. Hell, a laptop will have permanent high-CPU usage on 1080p gifs, as a video it's background noise (https://www.reddit.com/r/osx/comments/43rrf0/pixel_art_gif_a...)
At this point, killing GIF is a UX problem, not a format problem. I've talked about this before [0], but the big problem for me is that video is just difficult as hell. Compared to a GIF, it is just that much harder to save a video on a phone, and then upload it the same way as an image. Try to save a "GIF" from Twitter or from GIPHY - it's a /huge/ pain. Whatever the GIF killer is will need to pass the right click t…
Right, in my opinion for this to work, we need an AV1 derivative that acts as a GIF: 1. Similar looping behavior 2. No audio 3. Can be put in an tag You should be able to save the file like you would a gif, and viewers should also show it as they would a gif (not a video).
There is a feature request for Chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=791658
Calling AV1 something that looks almost exactly like AVI seems like a mistake...
Hell no, it's not. None of my devices can play HEVC videos filmed with a recent iPhone without severe performance glitches. I fear to imagine how hard it is going to be to play AV1. MP4 AVC feels like a great replacement for animated GIFs and almost every device in use today plays it nicely yet, sadly, most of the websites that would allow inserting a GIF in a post won't allow an MP4 file instead. For some sites you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any application that doesn't allow me to stop something from being annoying, will be stopped from being annoying by being uninstalled. If browsers made it such that I couldn't not stop .gif animations (or playing video, or...), I would trash that browser. Bluntly, you do not get to control my computer.
The point is that they are more images than videos. They have no possible way to contain sounds so the annoyingness is limited to having unwanted images in your browser. You can tell your browser to block a particular still image. You can do the same thing to block a GIF. You don't need a pause/play feature on a 2-5 second sequence.
Human sight has evolved to be attracted to movement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Just one problem I discovered recently is that no other format does looping properly. With a GIF, you can right-click and save it, and all the looping info is inside the file. The quality is crappy, but it just works. With all “proper” video formats, looping info is metadata, stored separately. You can’t even go for something slightly more modern, animated PNGs, because there are warring formats and very few too…
Looping is up to the video player, not the format or container. What "video formats" have looping as metadata? Gifs only have a loop flag so static images can be displayed instead of looped indefinitely as video.
Says who? First of all, it really is debatable if animated gif even is a movie. It has no sound, is usually far shorter than the usual video clip, etc. Second, animated gifs are very often created solely for the purpose of displaying them in a short looping fashion. Third, the fact that all this can be done in a single image format makes them ideal for sharing through the web as well as private chat applications. And fifth, and this is what this is of course all about, sharing short animated gifs gives the user the possibility to share rich content not tied to any private business or entity. You can share 'em via Whatsapp, Telegram, e-mail, usb-stick, have a collection of them stored somewhere, without the need for a Facebook/Google/Amazon account and internet connectivity. You can look lovingly at them, even when your phone is in flight mode. Let's keep it that way. Let's not kill one of the nicest image formats around, and make everybody visit your website to see the embedded movie including horrid player that's supposed to be better but just isn't and never will be. Lot's of companies already did this (hi Twitter) and it's really disheartening to know that while I was able to collect a nice bunch of animated gifs over the years, my kids will probably never have that chance because the file format will just be walled off by the internet giants.
At this point, killing GIF is a UX problem, not a format problem. I've talked about this before [0], but the big problem for me is that video is just difficult as hell. Compared to a GIF, it is just that much harder to save a video on a phone, and then upload it the same way as an image. Try to save a "GIF" from Twitter or from GIPHY - it's a /huge/ pain. Whatever the GIF killer is will need to pass the right click t…
Which is sad because webm in browsers already passes the right click test but websites have started a trend of blocking users from saving content so they choose to share a link instead which brings in more ad views. When I want to copy an image from Instagram I have to use the dev tools to find it.