←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
617 points bluedel | 3 comments | 24 Jun 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.78s | source
Show context
albert_e ◴[25 Jun 25 05:09 UTC] No.44373786[source]▶
So animated GIFs can be replaced by Animated PNGs with alpha blending with transparent backgrounds and lossless compression! Some nostalgia from 2000s websites can be revived and relived :)

Curious if Animated SVGs are also a thing. I remember seeing some Javascript based SVG animations (it was a animated chatbot avatar) - but not sure if there is any standard framework.

replies(10): >>44373806 #>>44373868 #>>44374146 #>>44374225 #>>44374312 #>>44374556 #>>44374786 #>>44376132 #>>44379316 #>>44385628 #
riffraff ◴[25 Jun 25 05:22 UTC] No.44373868[source]▶
I was under the impression many gifs these days are actually served as soundless videos, as those basically compress better.

Can animated PNG beat av1 or whatever?

replies(6): >>44374218 #>>44374256 #>>44374550 #>>44374739 #>>44375571 #>>44385655 #
1. fc417fc802 ◴[25 Jun 25 08:01 UTC] No.44374739[source]▶
> many gifs these days are actually served as soundless videos

That's not really true. Some websites lie to you by putting .gif in the address bar but then serving a file of a different type. File extensions are merely a convention and an address isn't a file name to begin with so the browser doesn't care about this attempt at end user deception one way or the other.

replies(1): >>44375388 #
2. faceplanted ◴[25 Jun 25 09:47 UTC] No.44375388[source]▶
You said that's not really true and the described exactly how it's true, what did you mean?
replies(1): >>44383933 #
3. fc417fc802 ◴[26 Jun 25 03:25 UTC] No.44383933[source]▶
I parsed the comment as something along the lines of clever hackers somehow stuffing soundless videos into gif containers which is most certainly not what is going on. I was attempting to convey that they have nothing to do with gifs. Gifs are not involved anywhere in the process.

I'm not sure why people disagree so strongly with what I wrote. Worst case scenario is that it's a slightly tangential but closely related rant about deceptive web design practices. Best case scenario is that someone who thought some sort of fancy trick involving gifs was in use learns something new.