APNG is great

Why are we still using GIF? Shit sucks.

Because only Firefox and Opera support it. Chrome only supports it with an add-on.

APNG sucks even more. "Awesome, 24bpp lossless video!" Who needs that. Simple animations, GIF is fine.

Anything more, ---> www.youtube.com

>>3
What do you think of HTML5 and all of this "making internet sites like programs" shit?

>>4
I'm not Coulder but it's shit. Web 3.6 is another case of hamfistedly battering the wrong technology until it vaguely resembles a Swiss army knife, creating a cancerous homogeneity in the process.

>>3
So you think 256 colors is enough for an animation? 8 bits per color channel is just unnecessary, eh? I guess you must really like color banding.
Also, Youtube/Google considered harmful.

>>4
Not Cudder, but I want to see more multimedia support which doesn't involve flash containers. That's pretty much all I like about HTML5.

>>5
Strange that you mention 3.6, as that is one of the very last good versions of FireFox. I agree, HTML5 only adds additional complexity with little substance.

>>6
It's definitely enough for the applications that GIF is used for. It's not meant to be a replacement for video.

>>7
Flash was good when it was still Macromedia and not Adobe. The video tag is nice but the stupid codec wars are not. Whatever happened to "use whatever codecs the user has installed"?

I'm willing to bet 90% of video-viewing users already have Xvid (MPEG-4) or H.264 or some similar codec on their system, so why not use that. ffdshow is a good FOSS implementation. Eliminates all the licensing/patent issues, because then Mozilla/Google/whoever don't need to ship codecs with their browsers.

>>3
can't apng do 256 colors too?

>>8

"use whatever codecs the user has installed"

Use your brain.
I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with encoding!.

>>9
APNG can do you're mum lel

>>8
I hate the html audio shit. I used to just expect people to have flash, now (if you want a cross compatible solution with HTML5) you have to do the following:


<audio controls="controls">
<source src="/music/Ahmed_Stole_The_Precious_Thing.ogg" type="audio/ogg" />
<source src="/music/Ahmed_Stole_The_Precious_Thing.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" />
    <!--[if !IE]> -->
    <object width="300" height="25" data="/swf/player.swf?soundFile=/music/Ahmed_Stole_The_Precious_Thing.mp3&wmode=transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">
    <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
    <!-- <![endif]-->
    <!--[if IE]>
    <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,22,87" width="290" height="24">
   
    <param name="movie" value ="/swf/player.swf?soundFile=/music/Ahmed_Stole_The_Precious_Thing.mp3&wmode=transparent" />
    <param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
    <!-->
    </object>
    <!-- <![endif]-->
</audio>

Gotta transcode all that shit from your source too.
It could do with a fallback download link, used failing the swf object load, for those with flash disabled and no HTML5.

>>12 cont.
fallback download link
which is simple to implement, but I prefer leaving shit broken so that text-browsing enthusiasts might instead email complaints to me and I'll have someone to talk to.

Ahmed_Stole_The_Precious_Thing.ogg
WAIT, WHAT

also only provide the ogg vorbis version and screw the haters

>>1
Gif still beats the everything out of apng, if we are talking about simple animations. For video Dirac. If you are politically bound, then go for apng.
Try it if you like:
http://saforas.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/apng-vs-gif/
http://davickart.tumblr.com/post/15830163701/apng-vs-animated-gif

>>12,13
Lol, what a loser, using html5 for markup and flash, and not using opus master lossy race.

>>14
suck it, use opus if you need lossy.

>>15
Gif still beats the everything out of apng
Aside from one very important thing: color depth. You brush it off like that's no big deal, but that's the whole fucking point of APNG.

>>16
If you were going for bpp, and hate dithering, then go for apng. Its creation was political although.

>>17
Is English your second language?

>>18
third sir. But what can you not comprehend?

>>15
Would still need a flash fallback for IE users, and a fallback for browsers without opus implementation.
Sounds like a reasonable format though. Might implement in the future.

>>20
Honestly, force them to install the opus addon. And tell IE users to suck it, "This site cannot be properly viewed on IE. Please download a better browser here:"

We did already for Textual browsers. Why not step it up a notch?

If you are not getting it, forcing people to make changes is what made macromedia shockwave (now adobe flash), microsoft OSf(x), Mac OSX, MPEG, Realmedia, et cetera..., so successful. Don't you just love bullies⸮

>>10
What about encoding?

>>16
If you need more than 8bpp in an animated image you should just use a video codec, because that's what they're designed for...

>>22
Thank you!

>>22
>What about encoding?
What about having to encode your video in 36 different formats, most of which are proprietary and will get you jevved?

>>12,15
FLAC or GTFO.

>>25
.wav or GTFO.

I will sooner use apng than .gif .shitwiggerfactory or .mediapissenculer4 or any such shit.

gif: who needs color purity or image purity? everyone uses led these days! the fucking things can't produce proper images anyways!

flash: ahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahahaha, oh man, the thought of ever actually using flash for anything, ahahahahahaha why dont i whip you up a pdf that would've been better represented and composed quicker by a plaintext markup but you'll never know because you've got 10 years experience in ENTERPRISE MARKETING

video codecs: hold on while it takes 3 days for these couple frames of pngs to encode into bullshit almost as lossy as gif, and guaranteed to be unsupported by 95% of clients because people only have flash installed and ONLY so they can watch their beloved jewlube

>>27
go round another corner, /g/ shitstain

apng isn't standard

>>29
Being a standard is meaningless. What matters is whether technology works for a purpose.