PDA

View Full Version : See you in hell, GIF!



ExAm
August 9th, 2008, 07:15 AM
Let us now embrace APNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_Portable_Network_Graphics). It's simply better. Halo effect around animated GIFS on differently colored backgrounds? Gone. Partial transparency? It's there. Yeah. Awesome.

GIF
http://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/apng/spinfox.gif

APNG
http://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/apng/spinfox.png

CabooseJr
August 9th, 2008, 08:22 AM
Ahh, both of those gifs are making me dizzy. D:

PlasbianX
August 9th, 2008, 08:31 AM
Yea but look at the file sizes lol. The apng is almost 10x as big

Reaper Man
August 9th, 2008, 09:25 AM
Also, IE doesn't support yet.

Pyong Kawaguchi
August 9th, 2008, 09:46 AM
APNG seems smoother aswell
I like
Needs moar Ie support >.>

Kornman00
August 9th, 2008, 10:10 AM
Too bad PNG officially rejected it as an extension. Maybe they were high?

Pooky
August 9th, 2008, 10:12 AM
Let us now embrace APNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_Portable_Network_Graphics). It's simply better. Halo effect around animated GIFS on differently colored backgrounds? Gone. Partial transparency? It's there. Yeah. Awesome.

GIF
61.69 KB

APNG
598.95 KB


Yeah, forgive me if I don't call that a huge innovation :|

I can see where it would be better for animation, or for large images. But for practical use I don't think GIF is done just yet.

klange
August 9th, 2008, 10:39 AM
Yea but look at the file sizes lol. The apng is almost 10x as big

Yeah, forgive me if I don't call that a huge innovation :|

I can see where it would be better for animation, or for large images. But for practical use I don't think GIF is done just yet.
You do see the number of frames in the GIF as compared to the APNG, right?

Pooky
August 9th, 2008, 10:41 AM
You do see the number of frames in the GIF as compared to the APNG, right?

No shit, that's the point.

PlasbianX
August 9th, 2008, 10:42 AM
You do see the number of frames in the GIF as compared to the APNG, right?

8 for GIF, 25 for APNG. 3 times as many frames, 10x the size. I still think thats rather bad.

klange
August 9th, 2008, 10:43 AM
8 for GIF, 25 for APNG. 3 times as many frames, 10x the size. I still think thats rather bad.
There's also alpha transparency in all of the PNG frames. That's an entire extra channel. Plus the better color quality overall.

Pooky
August 9th, 2008, 10:45 AM
You're not getting it though. Those things are nice, but they're not something that really stands out, or that a lot of people would even notice. That's poor justification for the gigantic file size.

klange
August 9th, 2008, 10:51 AM
You're not getting it though. Those things are nice, but they're not something that really stands out, or that a lot of people would even notice. That's poor justification for the gigantic file size.
It's not gigantic.
GIF limits you to a 256 color palette, has no alpha transparency, and is a horrible compression system. This has a 32-bit color palette, full alpha transparency and significantly more frames.

Pooky
August 9th, 2008, 10:52 AM
It's not gigantic.
GIF limits you to a 256 color palette, has no alpha transparency, and is a horrible compression system. This has a 32-bit color palette, full alpha transparency and significantly more frames.

Again, like I said, it's good for large, detailed animation images that you want crisp and clear. But I wouldn't want to download a crapload of these things on a page.

beele
August 9th, 2008, 11:00 AM
Very nice this APNG thing, but does swf ring any bells. Supreme compression and you can make almost any animation you want with it, with scripts and all that kind of stuff.

Small swf animations take up less then a kb (no image but vector animation).

Amit
August 9th, 2008, 11:00 AM
Also, IE doesn't support yet.

This guy is still using IE! :gtfo:...now...


Again, like I said, it's good for large, detailed animation images that you want crisp and clear. But I wouldn't want to download a crapload of these things on a page.

This is the most practical answer to anything anyone is gonna write so just leave it.

flibitijibibo
August 9th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Heh, that's good for the suggestion box. "Ban all IE users".

SMASH
August 9th, 2008, 11:48 AM
I like this.

klange
August 9th, 2008, 12:00 PM
Very nice this APNG thing, but does swf ring any bells. Supreme compression and you can make almost any animation you want with it, with scripts and all that kind of stuff.

Small swf animations take up less then a kb (no image but vector animation).
Flash still requires you to have a Flash player, which carries a heavy price. PNG support is browser-integrated. A better option is actually animated SVGs, but there is very limited support for them.

(Also, PNG defaults to lossless compression, but you can get smaller images with the same (or even slightly better) quality as a typical GIF is you set things that way)

beele
August 9th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Flash still requires you to have a Flash player, which carries a heavy price. PNG support is browser-integrated. A better option is actually animated SVGs, but there is very limited support for them.

(Also, PNG defaults to lossless compression, but you can get smaller images with the same (or even slightly better) quality as a typical GIF is you set things that way)

True, but remember that ms was working on something similar to flash. Silverlight I think was it's name. Haven't looked into it though, but it would be integrated in the next IE.

flibitijibibo
August 9th, 2008, 01:04 PM
Yeah, M$ had me install Silverlight a couple weeks ago. I to this day have no fucking clue what it does.

Botolf
August 9th, 2008, 01:31 PM
I was makin' an Episode Two image, and wasn't really happy with how my gif turned out.

http://i35.tinypic.com/acg676.gif

Look at all that colour banding! Just look at it! :gonk:

Then I made an APNG. It looks awesome, but it's kind of huge.

http://rapidshare.com/files/135888619/extract_anim.png.html

16 MBs ehehehe

Heathen
August 9th, 2008, 02:32 PM
Sweet. I like this. I use Maxthon, which is a child of IE. Sucks.

ultama121
August 9th, 2008, 04:13 PM
:D

Xetsuei
August 9th, 2008, 04:26 PM
Very nice this APNG thing, but does swf ring any bells. Supreme compression and you can make almost any animation you want with it, with scripts and all that kind of stuff.

Small swf animations take up less then a kb (no image but vector animation).

Too bad swfs aren't images. :v:

ExAm
August 9th, 2008, 04:47 PM
8 for GIF, 25 for APNG. 3 times as many frames, 10x the size. I still think thats rather bad.
Doesn't mean the apng could have had 1/3 the frames, the feature I was trying to emphasize was the working partial transparency. I wish I could have found ones with the same amount of frames, but the demo I looked at had them like you see them here.

Zeph
August 9th, 2008, 11:10 PM
Bonus points for anyone who links me to a tutorial on how to make an animated png and any plugins I'll need for photoshop.

klange
August 9th, 2008, 11:27 PM
Bonus points for anyone who links me to a tutorial on how to make an animated png and any plugins I'll need for photoshop.
The only tool I know of is actually an extension for Firefox 3, aptly named APNG Edit (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5519). :|

Reaper Man
August 9th, 2008, 11:48 PM
This guy is still using IE! :gtfo:...now...
I don't use IE you moron, and browser fanboyism? Dear god, grow up. The reason for my concerns is that, web developers want their sites to be cross-browser compatible, so if one were to have all the animated elements of their page as APNGs, then IE and Safari and Opera (the list goes on) users would not have the same experience.

beele
August 10th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Xetsueiâ„¢;288175']Too bad swfs aren't images. :v:

I know, but they do the job just fine. Too bad my iphone has no flash support, otherwise I'd make my site with more swf files instead of gif files (my site now uses lots of gif files).

Bodzilla
August 10th, 2008, 06:49 AM
I was makin' an Episode Two image, and wasn't really happy with how my gif turned out.

http://i35.tinypic.com/acg676.gif

Look at all that colour banding! Just look at it! :gonk:

Then I made an APNG. It looks awesome, but it's kind of huge.

http://rapidshare.com/files/135888619/extract_anim.png.html

16 MBs ehehehe
You got a download,

but you do realize that instead of downloading this one image, i could download 8, 10 second pr0n clips?
:raise:

DaneO'Roo
August 10th, 2008, 08:46 AM
So what does this offer over a regular animated png? I don't seem to understand.

Botolf
August 10th, 2008, 03:08 PM
You got a download,

but you do realize that instead of downloading this one image, i could download 8, 10 second pr0n clips?
:raise:
This GIF is one-of-a-kind, handcrafted in the hands of a Botolf craftsman.

legionaire45
August 10th, 2008, 04:03 PM
So what does this offer over a regular animated png? I don't seem to understand.
Vanilla PNG doesn't support animation afaik. Basically they are taking the PNG format and allowing you to animate it like a gif with the new format.