81–90 of 205 posts
an animated gif is not necessarily a video clip, but it seems that i'm in the minority these days. here's a gif by nicolas sassoon, which format would you prefer? http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gif (1.3 MB) or http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gifv (3.9 MB)
Wow, the colors are just gutted in the mp4 version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, why are they calling mp4 files gifv files? Is it somehow cooler? Can I start serving .html files as .awesome files? And .js as .kicka$$ files? and .mp3 as .boomin'? GET "index.awesome" at this rate, why not re-write all of html so it's cooler? => => =>
Can I start serving .html files as .awesome files? Sure, go ahead. Extensions in a URL have little to do with the actual type of content, and .html has long been abandoned by dynamic systems, who originally went to extensions being an implementation detail, and on many current systems being a lie (e.g. the .aspx extension that actually runs a PHP page that returns an HTML5 file). They're using a URL extension to sign…
an animated gif is not necessarily a video clip, but it seems that i'm in the minority these days. here's a gif by nicolas sassoon, which format would you prefer? http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gif (1.3 MB) or http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gifv (3.9 MB)
>GIFs being lossless, editable and universally supported are a pretty big part of what spawned this “culture of the GIF”.
Sure, video editing tools exist, but I think most people would agree that GIFs are more "remix-able" than MP4s. It's important that we preserve both formats. (Or perhaps it's time for a modern lossless animation format?)
an animated gif is not necessarily a video clip, but it seems that i'm in the minority these days. here's a gif by nicolas sassoon, which format would you prefer? http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gif (1.3 MB) or http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gifv (3.9 MB)
another user brought up a good point in the comments section of the imgur post: >GIFs being lossless, editable and universally supported are a pretty big part of what spawned this “culture of the GIF”. Sure, video editing tools exist, but I think most people would agree that GIFs are more "remix-able" than MP4s. It's important that we preserve both formats. (Or perhaps it's time for a modern lossless animation format…
Why not WebM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers should display GIFVs without transport controls (unlike ), and ignore any audio tracks that are included - basically construct a limited MP4 profile and handle it appropriately. It's a useful construct imho.
Why not just have an attribute or two in tag that sets it to be no volume and whether there should be transport controls? That sounds more useful to me and applicable across all video formats.
I dont get the trick.Is it gif or a h264 video inside a "gif" container? looking at the source code,I see a video tag.
Cheers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers should display GIFVs without transport controls (unlike ), and ignore any audio tracks that are included - basically construct a limited MP4 profile and handle it appropriately. It's a useful construct imho.
Why not just have an attribute or two in tag that sets it to be no volume and whether there should be transport controls? That sounds more useful to me and applicable across all video formats.
Can't we just all settle for .webm? The cancerous patented MP4/H264 combination must die.
The cancerous patented gif/lzw combination must die.