3 ms·
When it comes to converting small video snippets to animated graphics, I think WEBP was much better than APNG from the beginning. Only if you use GIF as interme
by chithanh 1y ago
When it comes to converting small video snippets to animated graphics, I think WEBP was much better than APNG from the beginning. Only if you use GIF as intermediate format then APNG was competitive.
Nowadays, AVIF serves that purpose best I think.
- account42 1y agowebm or any other non-gimped video codec would be a much better format for that use case. Unfortunately browsers don't allow those in image contexts so we are stuck with an inferior "state of the art" literally-webm-with-deliberately-worse-compression webp standard. AVIF is only starting to become widespread so can't be used without fallback if you care about your users. Not sure how it compares to AV1 quality/compression wise but hopefully its not as gimped as webp and there will encoders that aren't as crap as libwebp that almost everyone uses.
- chithanh 1y ago> Unfortunately browsers don't allow those in image contexts The fact that we have the <img> element at all is bad. HTML has since the early days a perfectly capable <object> which can even be nested to provide fallback, but browser support was always spotty. The Acid2 test famously used <object> to shame browser vendors into supporting it at least to some extent.