4 ms·
At least for pixel graphics with transparency converting gif to apng would be a far better choice than gif to h.264 or vp9. The thing is that you want 4:4:4 (n
by the8472 10y ago
At least for pixel graphics with transparency converting gif to apng would be a far better choice than gif to h.264 or vp9.
The thing is that you want 4:4:4 (no chroma subsampling) + alpha + lossless for pixel graphics. While some video standards support that in theory browsers often don't support those advanced profiles.
- mzs 10y agoI was surprised how well ProRes 4444 worked-out in practice for Windows/Mac/other(ffmpeg). The only downside was enormous size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ProRes#ProRes_4444_and_ProRes_4444_XQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ProRes#ProRes_4444_and_P...
- the8472 10y agoffmpeg is not the issue here, it supports several 444/alpha/lossless codecs quite well, proes is not special in that regard. Browsers only expose a small subset of codecs that ffmpeg supports. gif and apng are now the most compatible format in browsers for this kind of content.
- mzs 10y agoFourCC of ap4x 'just worked' on IE (I might have installed QuickTime codecs), Safari, and gstreamer with Firefox - it just played in the window (though I did not test alpha channel). I was surprised too ;)