How do the new lossy video formats work for looped videos? It looks like gifv has been accepted by r/perfectLoops...[1] Do HEVC etc require the last frame of a video to be a keyframe? Are predicted frames specified at the same quality level as keyframes?
Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
71–80 of 121 posts
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#72BPG is basically HVEC, so why not just use HVEC? its a serious question, in 2 years HVEC decoders will be in all hardware. Which means fast, energy efficient decoders on virtually all platforms. Having a seperate codec, which is basically a less capable version of an industry standard, whats the point? (ignoring the still images part for a second.)
HEVC, yes. But is a BPG animation the same as an HEVC video, or is it a sequence of BPG frames?
The BPG standard[1] says P-slices are used, but not B-slices...
[1] sec 3.3 http://bellard.org/bpg/bpg_spec.txt
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#73Implementing an image format via JS is cool, but I'm not sure what the use-case is for this format that isn't already covered (and supported in browsers) by other formats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. For most platforms, you might even get decoding supp…
> [APNG] should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content. H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264. If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a b…
Alpha channels in H.26x (really any delivery codec) are a nightmare compared to APNG/GIF.
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#74Half the comments are pointing out that BPG is implemented in JavaScript. Like no shit? It's not natively supported in browsers, and OP makes a call for everyone to push browsers to natively support it. I mean like, geez, I want a proper video-like playback format (e.g. 24+ frames per second) at a smaller file size, so that I can view videos on my mobile phone. Gif lags on mobile internet, and MP4 requires that we ex…
> Gif lags on mobile internet, and MP4 requires that we explicitly hit the play button on mobile browsers. Wouldn't the more obvious choice be simply adding an option in browsers to not require hitting the play button (perhaps for MP4 that has no sound)? Even with browser support for BPG, MP4 has the huge advantage of hardware acceleration in almost all modern devices[1]. [1] In theory, BPG may be able to take advant…
> Wouldn't the more obvious choice be simply adding an option in browsers to not require hitting the play button (perhaps for MP4 that has no sound)?
This is basically what Imgur did with GIFV (http://blog.imgur.com/2014/10/09/introducing-gifv), I think.
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people said that then they were silly, because JPEG and GIF solve different problems. JPEG didn't displace GIF because JPEG doesn't actually do a good job of compressing the images that GIF is good at compressing. Note that once a format came along that was good at those, namely PNG, it did displace GIF pretty much entirely for the still-image use case.
Does anyone know why the APNG format was rejected by the PNG group? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG ) It seems like a great replacement for animated GIFs.
APNG was rejected primarily because it used image/png when it was clearly a video, and the WG felt that images shouldn't handle video. When video/png was offered instead, Mozilla rejected that because it felt backwards compatibility was more important.
So, basically, it was rejected due to a pissing contest on the least important part of the specification.
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#76Wouldn't something like a looping MJPEG do the trick too? It's just effectively a 'flickbook' of JPEGs.
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#77Wow, this throws me back to the early 90s, when we would basically have the same discussions about JPEG vs GIF. At the time most graphics programs could open a GIF you downloaded with your modem, but if you wanted to view a JPEG you had to jump out to a separate program, and everyone said that as soon as there was native JPEG support no one would use GIF anymore.
Hah yep given how long GIF has persisted, I think it's clear that nobody cares about what is the best format in terms of technical achievement. It's all about what is most compatible.
Pretty much.
Q @ anyone whom chimes in: what format(s) do sites use for silent, live-action backgrounds to make their websites and apps seem friendlier?
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even get to spot the difference. For some reason on my box chrome pegs the cpu at 25% for about 30 seconds then asks me to kill the page. Stripping out the alternate format, the other one plays instantly and with minimal cpu usage.
Read further down: "Current example is around 8-10s" If you let it run for awhile it eventually decodes.
If you let it run for awhile it eventually decodes.
I let it run past the "do you want to kill it" dialog for about 45 seconds more, then it hard crashed the tab.
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even get to spot the difference. For some reason on my box chrome pegs the cpu at 25% for about 30 seconds then asks me to kill the page. Stripping out the alternate format, the other one plays instantly and with minimal cpu usage.
Read further down: "Current example is around 8-10s" If you let it run for awhile it eventually decodes.
They also mention this, in the downsides:
"Main thread blocking while decompiling large files"
Re: Why BPG will replace GIFs and more
#80Right-click save as... oh. Not so much.
View source, CTRL-F and...
https://eek.ro/assets/bpg/ambition.bpg
Kind of inconvenient. Not to mention it's a blank white empty space in Firefox, and probably anywhere else not currently supporting the format.