51–60 of 242 posts
I would be happy if i got 2mb GIFs these days. You click on something that ends with gif or mp4 and you get half a megabyte of tracking javascript instead of the file you expected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
webp comes in lossy and lossless flavor. unless you want to degrade the gifs you would have to pick lossless and in that case it's not a clear win over apng even if we ignore the compatibility question.
A lossy 24-bit color webp image (which is encoded with VP8's intra-frame compression) is likely to look better than a 8-bit color palette lossless gif.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s really an application issue, but god damn is it an annoying one.
No, its a os one. windows, and most other os's, allow copy and pasting images as image data in the clipboard, but can only handle video links , there is no way to natively copy and paste the video contents.
The article compares a single img tag with a single gif src url to a video tag with 2 child nodes linking to 2 separate files encoded with 2 different ways, as mp4 and webm. That’s already more than 2x as much work to post an animated image, not to mention limited support for transparency and needing to pay some extra attention for seamless looping. Video on the web needs to mature quite a bit more.
tsk tsk. it's not like someone is going to need to write all of that HTML. some user will be doing this with twitter/IM/FB/etc where some dev will have implemented a node library that will have some method call to do this for you. it's not like anybody cares what the automated HTML in the background looks like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gifs (and videos that people call gifs) wouldn’t be what they are today if it weren’t for their ease of copying/saving and pasting/uploading to somewhere else, which you could similarly call an application feature. So this application issue with video (as implemented in this article) is almost certainly what will stop gifs from being replaced.
This only worked properly in Firefox since 2016 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=664717 so that's probably not it.
The video per se won't loop if I save it in my computer or phone. I can't drag and drop, right click, long tap.
To have anything replacing gif you need THE EXACT SAME BEHAVIOUR, EVERYWHERE.
It doesn't matter for the consumer whose fault it is: encoding, the app, how the file is created. The user uses it, they don't care how it works. They will use whatever have the same behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gifs (and videos that people call gifs) wouldn’t be what they are today if it weren’t for their ease of copying/saving and pasting/uploading to somewhere else, which you could similarly call an application feature. So this application issue with video (as implemented in this article) is almost certainly what will stop gifs from being replaced.
But it's being done above the format level entirely. Every browser that can decode video has a "Copy Video URL" context menu item. It's just that the websites hide it to discourage hotlinking
not copy the url, paste in a terminal for curl or wget to download it, then copy the video..