4 ms·
Honestly, I tuned out. Animations are procedural and are best represented with a scripting language - not with a declarative image format. Resource-constraining
by eggspurt 14y ago
Honestly, I tuned out. Animations are procedural and are best represented with a scripting language - not with a declarative image format. Resource-constraining javascript within an (i)frame is probably a better way to spend a browser developer's time.
- maxst 14y agoI believe there is a niche for simple animations: just a sequence of frames in a loop. No need for JavaScript, since it's just a simple loop. Easy to upload to image hosting services. And all browsers already support such simple-loop animated GIFs, so the code is already there, just not utilized to full (true color) potential.
- zevyoura 14y agoThis is true for the majority of animations, but .gifs have come to serve a niche for short video content sans audio that they uniquely fulfill on the web. If APNG or MNG or whatever could replace huge animated .gifs for things like r/cinemagraphs I'd be thrilled.
- eggspurt 14y agoHaving seen animated gifs, I can assure you that mngs (pronounced as mings) would be likewise huge. It's better to just have a 1-line JS script do this, and a standard for sandboxing nonthreatening JS.
- maxst 14y agoBut you can't upload that 1-line JS script to imgur. Animated GIFs are getting very popular again because even with 5Mb-8Mb sizes GIFs are easier to handle today, comparing to downloading that 200Kb Dancing_Baby.gif in the 90s.
- zevyoura 14y agoMy understanding is that PNGs are in general smaller than gifs for equivalent quality, so wouldn't the animated version be similarly smaller?