Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's fine, but it's lossless so it's not good for most video use cases.

So is animated gif, though.

What I'm saying is, in uses akin to this article, apng is not a meaningful upgrade over gif.

It's a huge upgrade for certain kinds of content, especially animated icons with aliased edges. But that narrowness means there's only a moderately small push toward adoption.

In principle it has the same advantages PNG has over GIF for static images -- 24-bit color and 8-bit alpha, both of which are a big deal.

APNG or something similar should have replaced GIF completely, but the delivery was badly fumbled. Browsers now mostly support it, but authoring tools mostly don’t.

More color depth is sort of useful for heavily compressed video. Transparency very rarely matters in that use case.

“Sort of useful”?? 8-bit versus 24-bit color is like night and day!

Transparency for video is kind of a niche thing, sure, but when you need it you really need it. A good example would be compositing green-screen footage. (Keying transparency on a specific color is exactly the kind of hack GIF uses, whereas PNG does it properly, with a separate alpha channel.)

Omitting obvious stuff like an alpha channel because you don’t think anyone needs it is exactly the kind of oversight that makes all these “modern” video formats unable to completely replace GIFs. Looping is another example.

For a super compressed video there's really not that much difference. And that's almost all videos as gifs. You don't want it to be 100MB.

And I didn't say transparency isn't needed by "anyone". I said it's very rare for video-ish content.

Apng is better than gif. But its advantages really shine in realms other than video content. They're both pretty bad at video content, even despite looping properly.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact