31–40 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd also have to be compatible with all browsers (including primitive versions of IE) to cover the other reason people use gifs.
Primitive versions of IEs can be ignored. Worrying about support for old IE is counterproductive.
Why specifically GIFs? It's a generic animation technique, works with any video format. As was pointed out many times, if you have control over your site, don't use GIFs for video and animation. Use proper video formats (WebM and etc.). It will only save space and loading time and improve quality.
There are services which convert gifs to videos to use the much more efficient encoding: http://gfycat.com/about. So we’ve come full circle once again.
Showing the same gifs without those white solid lines for comparison would have been better. Anyways cool stuff :).
would like to see how it plays out without the white lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the current popularity of GIF compared to HTML5 is really because of autoplay (since can do that too, and loop too). The big advantage of GIF is that it works in an tag just like any other image, so you don't need a website to explicitly support it. Another advantage, I think, is that GIFs are guaranteed not to play sound, which is great when browsing say imgur.com or pr0gramm.com at work (edit: of well…
Video can be muted with the tag itself. The only advantage of GIF is like you said - you can use it in any place where images are supported (forums and etc.) and video is not. On the sites where you have control over the tags GIFs are counterproductive. For example they are way bigger for the same length of video.
On the other hand, users don't have to know whether the HTML they are served have s or s, so this could all be done behind the scenes, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically: GIFs autoplay on people's Tumblr dashboards, proper video formats don't, and that's pretty much all people are trying to achieve in the first place. If we just had some sort of file-extension/media-type (.webg, maybe?) that signalled to a browser "I'm a video container, but treat me like a gif, by defaulting to autoplaying, looping, and muting me", we'd replace gifs instantly.
Facebook does this for videos uploaded to its services (Facebook, Instagram) and shared on feeds. It works quite well there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting effect of bubbling is not so much that people appear naked, but that the original picture, containing clothed people (typically bikinis), appear naked.
I've read this sentence 5 times and still have no idea what your argument is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read this sentence 5 times and still have no idea what your argument is.
There are lots of pictures of naked people online. Millions probably. A visual effect that makes it look like someone is naked isn't that impressive, because there are naked people all over the place. The nudity aspect isn't the most precise description of what makes the bubbles effect interesting, it is the undressing aspect that makes it a interesting psychological/visual effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In case anyone has trouble searching for this, the term you're looking for is 'bubbling'. Parent poster has already warned you that this could presumably be considered NSFW somewhere (apparently)
TIL There is a subreddit for this. http://www.reddit.com/r/bubbling .