181–190 of 622 posts
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.
You can't even upload webp to instagram.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, so I can download it, but then I have to convert it to a different format before half my apps will be able to use it.
Maybe the issue is with your operating system then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't even upload webp to instagram.
Which makes sense for an app made for photos: why would you capture a photograph to disk in a format made for distributing on the web?
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'm not sure about the tools and DX around animated PNGs. Is that a thing?
>After 20 years of stagnation, PNG is back with renewed vigor! After 20 years of success, we can't resist the temptation to mess with what works.
> [not] Officially supports Exif data How can you call this basic fail a success?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This problem was solved by HTTP since forever. Client sends `Accept` header with supported formats and server selects the necessary content with corresponding `Content-Type` header. You don't need any HTML tags for it.
What about file extensions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This problem was solved by HTTP since forever. Client sends `Accept` header with supported formats and server selects the necessary content with corresponding `Content-Type` header. You don't need any HTML tags for it.
What about file extensions?
But even beyond that, most file formats have a bit of a header at the start of the file that declares the actual format of the file. Browsers already can understand that and use the correct render for a file without an extension.
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.
My file manager can’t handle them but my browser can. Edit: and good luck uploading the format to the majority of webforms that aren’t faang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Note that I'm looking at "all tracked," which excludes 2% "other" browsers in the data whose featureset is not known.