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

A new PNG spec

programmax.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 622 posts

Re: A new PNG spec

#151

Post by bawolff »

riffraff wrote: post #12
albert_e wrote: post #5

So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :) Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

I was under the impression many gifs these days are actually served as soundless videos, as those basically compress better. Can animated PNG beat av1 or whatever?

Its also because people like to "pause" animations, and that is not really an option with apng & gif.

Re: A new PNG spec

#152

Post by [deleted] »

Aissen wrote: post #120
armada651 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can animated PNG beat av1 or whatever? Animated PNGs can't beat GIF nevermind video compression algorithms.

> Animated PNGs can't beat GIF nevermind video compression algorithms. Not entirely true, it depends on what's being displayed, see a few simple tests specifically constructed to show how much better APNG can be vs GIF and {,lossy} webp: http://littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp.html Of course I don't think it generalizes all that well…

[deleted]

Re: A new PNG spec

#153

Post by dotancohen »

michaelmior wrote: post #147
poisonborz wrote: post #146

Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about". Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace. Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.

> and the abysmal everyday use it gets Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them?

In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

Re: A new PNG spec

#154

Post by bawolff »

bmacho wrote: post #50
albert_e wrote: post #5

So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :) Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

> Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. SVG is just html5, it has full support for CSS, javascript with buttons, web workers, arbitrary fetch requests, and so on (obviously not supported by image viewers or allowed by browsers).

Browsers support all that sort of thing, as long as you use an iframe. (Technically there are sone subtle differences between that and html5, but you are right its mostly the same)

If you use an tag, svgs are loaded in "restricted" mode. This disables scripting and external resources. However animation via either SMIL or CSS is still supported.

Re: A new PNG spec

#155

Post by bawolff »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #3

> I know you all immediately wondered, better compression?. We're already working on that. This worries me. Because presumably, changing the compression algorithm will break backwards compatibility, which means we'll start to see "png" files that aren't actually png files. It'll be like USB-C but for images.

I don't think that will super be an issue. How often has "progressive jpeg" ever caused problems? That's the same thing.

Re: A new PNG spec

#157

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
michaelmior wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the abysmal everyday use it gets Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

Not all businesses are attempting to reach a market of "every internet user globally".

Re: A new PNG spec

#158

Post by bawolff »

jokoon wrote: post #105
albert_e wrote: post #5

So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :) Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

both GIF and PNG use zipping for compressing data, so APNG are not much better than GIF

PNG uses deflate (same as zip) but GIF uses LZW. These are different algorithms. You should expect different compression results i would assume.

Re: A new PNG spec

#159

Post by bmacho »

Aissen wrote: post #120
armada651 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can animated PNG beat av1 or whatever? Animated PNGs can't beat GIF nevermind video compression algorithms.

> Animated PNGs can't beat GIF nevermind video compression algorithms. Not entirely true, it depends on what's being displayed, see a few simple tests specifically constructed to show how much better APNG can be vs GIF and {,lossy} webp: http://littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp.html Of course I don't think it generalizes all that well…

I tried these examples on ezgif, and indeed apng manages to be smaller than webp every single time. Weird, I was under the impression that webp was almost always smaller? Is this because GIF images are already special, or apng uses better compression than png?

edit: using the same ezgif webp and apng on a H.264 source, apng is suddenly 10x the size than webp. It seems apng is only better if the source is gif

Re: A new PNG spec

#160

Post by bawolff »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
michaelmior wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the abysmal everyday use it gets Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.

5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them? In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

Can the 5% view images at all? The number of web crawlers have exploded recently.
Post reply on HN