3 ms·
Yes indeed all modern video codecs are based on encoding differences between key frames. GIF has the most basic implementation of that (it can update only a win
by janekm 5y ago
Yes indeed all modern video codecs are based on encoding differences between key frames. GIF has the most basic implementation of that (it can update only a window in the image instead of the whole image).
The original GIF can actually be compressed losslessly down to just 1.4MB with a better compressor like https://gifcompressor.com https://gifcompressor.com .
MP4 (and similar codecs) are not typically very good at compressing regions of constant colour, while GIF is very good at that. However I have to admit that the output of that converter is acceptable in MP4, better than I would have expected (though noticeably worse quality).
BTW curiously (likely to better performance on regions of constant colour) the non-lossy WebP does better on this example coming in at just 1.2MB!
- technobabbler 5y ago2 MB is huge over mobile for a simple graphic illustrating one of many, many features. If you really want to use GIF, it would make more sense to manually create an animation out of frames you define, switching between highlights of that feature, rather than a screen recording that captures every minor, irrelevant animation and follows the hover popup as it moves around a few pixels. That's just a waste of bandwidth. A manually curated GIF of that size could be like 40 kB or so, not megabytes. Otherwise, I'd argue MP4 is by far the superior option for this use case given its far smaller size, where visitors just need to know at a rough glance what a feature does, not examine it for pixel perfection. An imperfect video that loads in 20% of the time is preferable than waiting forever for a huge gif to load.