Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Animation, Webp vs Gif?
#1
Just curious if any of you have  personal preferences in one vs the other?  I just tuned in to realizing that gimp can author Webp images, and that Webp is a more likely heir than animated PNG for web based animations. 

From my initial exposure, the Webp seems to excel in not having such a limited palette, and I guess partial transparency, but unfortunately the common free image hosting sites that I normally use (imgur) does not support them?

For a 2 frame animation I just made using movie stills as source, the Webp export  was twice the size of the GIF export.

Other impressions?
Reply
#2
(04-25-2021, 05:44 PM)rickk Wrote: Just curious if any of you have  personal preferences in one vs the other?  I just tuned in to realizing that gimp can author Webp images, and that Webp is a more likely heir than animated PNG for web based animations. 

From my initial exposure, the Webp seems to excel in not having such a limited palette, and I guess partial transparency, but unfortunately the common free image hosting sights that I normally use (imgur) does not support them?

For a 2 frame animation I just made using movie stills as source, the Webp export  was twice the size of the GIF export.

Other impressions?

A bit like you, too bad Imgur (and the software we use here on G-F.n) still don't support WebP fully. Imgur is weird, because if they don't accept the format as an upload, they often reencode as a WebP (while keeping the original extension...).

As to compression effectiveness you cannot look at size only, you have to balance size vs image degradation. There are "nice" pictures for GIF (especially CGI where everything can fit in the 256 entries of the colormap and you have sizable areas of uniform color) but the animation from real-life pictures is likely to look better in WebP for the same file size.
Reply
#3
(04-25-2021, 06:44 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: A bit like you, too bad Imgur (and the software we use here on G-F.n) still don't support WebP fully. Imgur is weird, because if they don't accept the format as an upload, they often reencode as a WebP (while keeping the original extension...).

As to compression effectiveness you cannot look at size only, you have to balance size vs image degradation. There are "nice" pictures for GIF (especially CGI where everything can fit in the 256 entries of the colormap and you have sizable areas of uniform color) but the animation from real-life pictures is likely to look better in WebP for the same file size.

Particularly curious, normally when there is a new functionality available. website developers almost shove it down your throat (HTML 5 for example) forcing you to either update, or suffer the wrath.   Webp almost seems to have a stealth presence. It's out there, but hardly anybody is evangelizing it.

I guess it's time for me to bite the bullet and buy some hosted space again. Angel
Reply
#4
Two free image hosting sites that I have found, https://postimages.org and  https://imgbb.com appear to support  WebP images

and at least the delphi forums'  standard image embedding tools seem to work with WebP images hosted either place.

(test)

[Image: Web-P-Gradient-Ani.webp]   [Image: PZ51mdk.gif]

WebP version significantly smaller than GIF version
Reply


Forum Jump: