4 ms·
What about the <video> tag? I guess it's nice that WebP support animation as well, but that's what the video tag exists for. Shoe-horning in frame-by-frame anim
by objclxt 14y ago
What about the <video> tag? I guess it's nice that WebP support animation as well, but that's what the video tag exists for. Shoe-horning in frame-by-frame animation in an image format when you can just use video (or the canvas, if you want to do something key frame based) seems like a bad idea to me.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's preferable is if you needed to do a video with an alpha channel. But this is more codec related than a problem with the concept itself.
- acdha 14y agoUntil Mozilla finally ships H.264 using <video> means you have to double-encode every single file, once using comparatively primitive tools, or use Flash as a fallback for Firefox and IE8. Until then, GIF files are much easier to work with.
- SeppoErviala 14y agoHave you seen how people use gif animations? Video is completely different format than animated images in today's internet. If video formats were preferable, things would have already changed. Animated images have several advantages: -Almost all places that support images support also animated image -Can be downloaded and reposted (as opposed to canvas) -No worry about audio, there is no audio -Seamless looping -Auto play everywhere -Variable frame rate These features could be achieved in a video format, but how would you convince websites that support images to support video with these characteristics? For example, I would never let people upload autoplaying, looping videos as their avatars or as part of their comment unless I could be 100% sure that there will be no audio. I would have to inspect the video for audio and I would need different handling for images and videos.