3 ms·
unefficient*, especially when putting actual video into gif format. most often those gifs are hideous (limited color palette etc) and huge (10+ MB for seconds o
by pxoe 1y ago
unefficient*, especially when putting actual video into gif format. most often those gifs are hideous (limited color palette etc) and huge (10+ MB for seconds of video), often either badly optimized (which would only make them look even more crunchy) or not optimized at all. gifs are just straightforwardly worse there (in quality and size). gifs are useful for having some graphics with transparency (if you don't mind crunchy one bit transparency), but there are much better formats (webp/webm, apng, etc) with much better 8-bit transparency too. seriously, people need to give it up and put video in a video format. like h264, which is gonna be widely compatible and likely hardware accelerated. (possibly performing better than huge gifs as well, hw accelerated or not)
- izzydata 1y agoI'm talking about cpu efficiency, not storage space. Video encoding is made to reduce storage at the cost of cpu. But as long as software treats all video formats like a video with the ability to pause and has a seek bar instead of just being an image then there is still a use case for formats like gif. If everything supported apng that would be great, but almost nothing does. Also for some reason every image I save from the net that claims to be an animated webp gets saved as a gif. I'm not sure why that is, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be that way.
- lousken 1y agoh264 was accelerated somewhere around geforce 6 series in 2004