3 ms·

I was never sure why MNG failed so spectacularly. Eventually it had to be replaced by full up H.264 videos and a lot of places are still using old fashioned an

I was never sure why MNG failed so spectacularly. Eventually it had to be replaced by full up H.264 videos and a lot of places are still using old fashioned animated GIFs because firing up a full fat video codec for a 32x16 animation with a dozen frames is silly. Was it really just the lack of interest from browser makers preventing people from using it?

powerpiglet 5y ago
I remember being excited about MNG, but finding the open-source libmng a pain to use. It was all based around callbacks with the library driving the animation cycle. Not a great fit if you were interested in using MNG for things like sprite animation.
dvhh 5y ago
Tool support was also an issue, I don't remember using any software that supported it out of the box and even less generated one, only a couple of dedicated image viewer/converter.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
My limited understanding was that the spec was too big and too difficult to implement. Too many features apparently. A simpler version called APNG was advanced instead. Until today I had no idea it is supported about everywhere except IE11. No one seems to know... spread the word. ;-) https://caniuse.com/?search=apng https://caniuse.com/?search=apng
Macha 5y ago
My understanding is that the video codecs are pretty clearly ahead for lossy compression, even for small numbers of frames. Image codecs got stuck in the jpg/gif/png local maximum, hence why a lot of the new image codecs (webp, heif, avif) are conceptually "one frame of a video codec" (vp9, h265 and av1 respectively)