Hacker News Reader

Comment by viktorcode | Hacker News Reader

Anyone knows if their implementation supports animations? This is a feature missing from Apple's

According to the chrome platform status page, yes! https://chromestatus.com/feature/5114042131808256

>>>

  - Progressive decoding for improved perceived loading performance
  - Support for wide color gamut, HDR, and high bit depth
  - Animation support

Yes, but it's not recommended - it does not have inter-frame compression, so it is significantly less efficient than just having a regular video file and slapping 'gif' on it.

Do you know of a video format that supports progressive decoding?

Progressive decoding isn't a very useful video feature because you need to decode the whole frame before you decode the next frame for inter-frame coding methods anyway.

It is, however, a very useful image format feature, giving you most information from the spinner/sticker/emoji/sprite, and refinig the already playing loop as it loads. That's why animated jxl is a bad video format — it's not a video format, it is a separate kind of seemingly weird thing.

That's not strictly correct, it's rather that the current encoder does no inter-frame compression. Patches (and the frame system in general) does give tools to do some inter-frame compression (not as many as in video, but still quite expressive), just nobody stepped up to implement compression using them for animations yet.

Video files are not supported in <img> tags.

It does, I just tried it in Canary and the jxl test page did also show animations

What, isn't this the cue for someone to explain that it's ironic webp is really a video format which is a bad image format, and now we have symmetry that JpegXL is a good image format which is bad video format? :-D

(I don't know if any of this is true, but it sounds funny...)

Webp is also an incredibly bad animation format since it drops most of the inter-frame compression features of the video codec it was derived from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com