4 ms·
> Today, latest image formats also do this competition of ticking every checkbox to even worse degree by adding animation that is worse than any video format in
by jcelerier 4y ago
> Today, latest image formats also do this competition of ticking every checkbox to even worse degree by adding animation that is worse than any video format in the last 20 years,
yet just seeking in any random vpX / h26x / ... format is A PITA compared to trusty old gifs. it's simple, if you cannot display any random frame N in any random order in constant (and very close to zero) time it's not a good animation format
- edflsafoiewq 4y agoYou can't do that for GIF. Each frame can be composited on top of the last frame (ie. no disposal; this allows storing only the part that changed), so to seek to a random frame you may need to replay the whole GIF from the start. The reason you can seek to any frame is GIFs tend to be small, so your browser caches all the frames in memory.
- thrashh 4y agoThat’s not a format problem so much as a viewer software problem
- pornel 4y agoGIF has no seeking at all. It's entirely sequential, requires single-threaded decoding start to finish. OTOH every video format has keyframes, is more friendly to post-90s CPUs, and recent formats are parallelizable. You have only been able to notice how "heavy" VPx is because lengths and resolutions used with this format are way beyond GIFs capabilities. Try encoding a mere 10-minute 30fps 1080p video in a GIF, I dare you.