3 ms·
I don't get it, you're complaining that an image codex is not a video codec? Well... duh. 2D images are used for their own sake, not as a compromise because yo
by andrepd 4y ago
I don't get it, you're complaining that an image codex is not a video codec? Well... duh.
2D images are used for their own sake, not as a compromise because you'd rather show a moving 3D object rendered at 8K but you can't. So obviously this is about the problem of compressing 2D images, it's off-topic to argue that it can't do video or whatever.
- ttoinou 4y agoWebsites could show videos instead of images. Videos can do more
- joshspankit 4y agoMeh. We went through that when flash first got popular. There were some good use-cases for sure, but pages that substituted video for images just ended up being far too busy while also being harder to maintain.
- astrange 4y agoWell, an image codec is a video codec and vice versa. Specifically, it's a good codec for editing because you can instantly seek to every frame.