maxst

Safari uses WebKit, except for WebKit image decoders.

The good news is, Apple implemented APNG support on their own: http://caniuse.com/apng

So at this point there are 2 open source implementation, plus 1 closed source.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

It's implemented on top of vanilla libpng.

In practice, only WebKit-based browsers will get APNG, not Chromium-based ones. That's not a big market share. But WebKit and Blink engines are still pretty similar, so there's something to consider.

For apng2gif I modified Wu's method to use 64x64x64 cube (instead of original 32x32x32), and the results are much better. It doesn't require too much RAM, especially compared with what was available in 1992.

It's approaching very slowly, at bicycle speed.

From the article, Ceres diameter:

Mar 1 : 207 pixels

Apr 10 : 306 pixels

Apr 14 : 453 pixels

Can't we just agree on:

1. APNG for low-color/lossless content.

2. MP4/WebM for video-like content.

3. ???

4. No more GIFs = Profit.

Worth to notice that Napoleon lost most of the army in August and September. He expected plenty of food during harvest season, not the scorched-earth tactics.

gif2apng result: http://i.imgur.com/FiSXtwg.png (654 KB)

Let's not forget APNG.

https://twitter.com/stuartparmenter/status/51207180752061644...

>But what about animation?

Try gif2webp and gif2apng converters on this example, and you will know:

https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2014/world-cup-2014-54-...

APNG support can be implemented on top of regular libpng. I have the working code.

When you can only post/upload content that end up inside img tag, it's not a false dichotomy.

Mozilla already uses patched libpng (with APNG support).

Yeah, that's what I would expect from WebP, as I played with gif2webp before, but I thought you said WebM, as in proper video?

I heard they wanted to use WebP, but I don't see any?

Can you convert this doodle GIF into lossless WebM? It would be interesting to see the numbers. I assume lossy compression would look bad, probably not worth it.

This site doesn't seem to have any problems serving better-looking APNGs for Firefox users, and plain old GIFs to all others: http://www.rw-designer.com/cursor-set/icq-flower

Yeah it's old, but it's still one of LZ types. ZIP is archaic too, but you can only improve it so much, even with very modern methods.

Google is not just posting doodles on the front page. Last time I heard they also have a browser. So they can shift those percentages, and by helping APNG, they can help themselves: their front-page will load faster. It's a win-win.

This doodle as GIF: 97 864 bytes Converted into APNG: 77 472 bytes

Ah google, still using GIFs in 2013... can't use APNG because it's "not invented here".

> Lossy and transparent? Out of luck.

Well, you could lossy-optimize PNGs if you really want to. Take Google front page logo, for example: not a lot of colors to justify using 32 bpp PNG. Just sacrifice some alpha bits, and you can switch to 256-color indexed PNG. I bet nobody would notice the difference, and the result would be a lot smaller.

Mozilla is not removing VP8 support.

I don't know, for me Far Manager for Windows seems way more useful than Midnight Manager for Linux.

But 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.

The type of deltas used in GIF can be easily implemented as it's the standard alpha blending method, available at OS and GPU level. Can't say that about more complex delta-PNG algorithm from MNG spec.

I guess 1-bit transparency was considered "good enough" in most cases, otherwise static GIFs would have disappeared years ago.

> can be easily fixed (in most cases) by using iepngfix for IE6

It could be even more easily fixed by using GIFs instead. I assume that's what many people thought. Thankfully, IE6 is finally dead and no one have to worry about PNGs anymore.

> Any live websites using it?

Even google isn't using it on thier websites. That says a lot.

I 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.

I remember you guys wanted to create simplified MNG 2.0, without stuff like MAGN and delta-PNG. What happened to it?