3 ms·
This is more efficient than pngs or gifs, no question. But modern browsers do movies (like, mp4 and ogg) really well, with no required chrome, a rendering engi
by sam_goody 5y ago
This is more efficient than pngs or gifs, no question.
But modern browsers do movies (like, mp4 and ogg) really well, with no required chrome, a rendering engine that is very good and easily controlled by js.
I wonder how a animation in Lottie compares to a embedded video tag of the same animation.
Isn't js JIT (slower), and evaluated higher in the stack (slower) than the video renderer?
- nness 5y agoIn my experience, we primarily use Lotte in UI animations where transparency is important for overlaying effects and elements. I realise now you can bake in an alpha channel to some video formats, but both support and production of these files is cumbersome and Lotte is great from a workflow perspective -- particularly if you have dedicated 'motion designers' on your design team who are accustomed to After Effects already.
- mkl 5y agoVideo codecs are designed primarily for imagery coming from a camera. They don't cope with sharp edges like vector shapes especially well - edges get blurry and blocky. Videos are also not scalable; if you stretch them for a bigger screen or zoom in, they get pixelated. You can encode with more sharpness or higher resolution, but that makes your files bigger. Little uses a vector format, so the results are sharp whatever the scale, with the same file size. However, each additional picture element may cost more in comparison. Some animations will be best in one, some in the other.
- Zababa 5y agoSo Lottie would be the video equivalent of the SVG format, in a way? That sounds like something that should/will be supported natively at some point.