I've talked about this before , but the big problem for me is that video is just difficult as hell. Compared to a GIF, it is just that much harder to save a video on a phone, and then upload it the same way as an image. Try to save a "GIF" from Twitter or from GIPHY - it's a /huge/ pain.
Whatever the GIF killer is will need to pass the right click test - I need to be able to just right click and save it.
So it's worse than a UX problem, it's a social problem.
Maybe as-easy-as-screenshots screen recording would go a long way toward solving it, but we've been beat to it: big tech has bent kernels, operating systems, browsers, and even most nations around the world into collaborating to refuse to take moving screenshots of video files, under the label of DRM.
So maybe the root of it all is just timing. Images were added to the web when the web was just a tool, so everybody knew what they were before big tech could set an expectations like that moving an image from memory to disk isn't a normal feature, or that wanting to is controversial, or that doing it might be illegal. Video, though, came at a time when there were big players that knew the stakes and were ready.
Then you need browser addons or tools like youtube-dl to get the whole thing.
Minus drag and drop, in browsers at least.
Videos really should be first-class entities, though.
Imagine an OS/browser-level ffmpeg implementation which would allow seamless copy/paste of videos, integrated snipping tools both for cropping and time, color adjustment, etc. with automatic imgur-style hosting of your newly edited video just a button-click away.
With a GIF, you can right-click and save it, and all the looping info is inside the file. The quality is crappy, but it just works.
With all “proper” video formats, looping info is metadata, stored separately.
You can’t even go for something slightly more modern, animated PNGs, because there are warring formats and very few tools that support them.
This means that once the new Chromium-based Edge ships, all major browsers will have support: https://www.caniuse.com/#feat=apng
I think the problem is that GIFs are images and so displayed as such with little concept of play-control. A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example. I believe a GIF-killer will need to be considered an image as a format.
> A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example.
> I believe a GIF-killer will need to be considered an image as a format.
If we consider animated GIF to be an image, then the distinction between "image" and "video" is pretty arbitrary.
I would say the distinction isn't inherent to the format either. It's inherent to the HTML tag. There's no reason we couldn't support `<img src="foo.av1" />` or `<video src="bar.gif" />` with the appropriate UI for each.
I actually think this is a symptom of something bigger: browsers (and most other applications) shouldn't care about media formats at all; that's a low-level concern of the OS/stdlib. The Datatypes system of AmigaOS (and later BeOS) is an example of how this could be improved.
The Internet has voted in favor of looping, "GIF-like" moving images. Platforms try to emulate this with proprietary video players. Some have sound (wanted or not), some of the video players prohibit copying, and none of the files work as simply as GIF for sharing.
We need something more modern than GIF, but that has playability baked in. Something that browsers treat as a moving image and not a video.
I don't quite follow. This is because the gif is decoded and played. No different than a video. You don't need a proprietary player to loop a video, you just go back to the start of the video. For streaming, this is only problematic for large videos that can't be cached, but the same applies to large gifs. Browsers can loop video, it's just a right-click setting. HTML5 can loop video, allowing sites to serve video in e.g. a banner, replacing gifs. You can save any video file just like a gif.
> Something that browsers treat as a moving image and not a video.
The entire point of deprecating gifs is because video is superior. Gif as an image format being able to specify frame duration and looping is hardly a noteworthy feature.
Try downloading a video from a popular social network. Can you easily do it without inspecting the source? If it's a two second clip, does it loop on your system? Or does the video player exit / end the stream?
This is absolutely a problem that GIF doesn't have.
> You don't need a proprietary player to loop a video
> You can save any video file just like a gif.
Except social networks force you to use a locked down or DRM'd player. You can get chunks of the video sometimes. Your non-tech friends are out of luck.
> you just go back to the start of the video
"just". Yeah, how many players support that out of the box? Yours might, but there are many more that do not.
Looping is a html5 video tag attribute. If a video isn't looping, it's because the site serving the video didn't add that tag attribute. Many gif-style video upload sites automatically loop videos.
Also, gifs in browsers don't support seeking which is annoying for gifs more than a few seconds long.
That's the site's decision. You also cannot easily download images from Twitter if there are more than one in a tweet for example. On Instagram it is blocked all in all.
No it isn't. UA means user agent, not corporate agent. If the user decides to persist something that is loaded on his machine then it is his choice to make.
Yes, I use Page Info (Tools menu -> Page Info) in Firefox. It lists all the media assets on the page and you can download the one you want.
The inability to right-click and save a video is less a problem with the video file itself and more a problem with how the page is structured. You can have the same right-click problem with GIFs depending on where they appear in the page structure.
Alternatively, use one of the media downloading add-ons which already exist.
The great mass of people don't care about saving media assets from a page. There will never be mass adoption of this, no matter how easy it is.
Video formats don't need to compete with GIFs. That competition is already over. GIF files are too big to be practical at scale. Video won the file size war a long time ago, which is precisely why Twitter "GIFs" are videos.
Says who? First of all, it really is debatable if animated gif even is a movie. It has no sound, is usually far shorter than the usual video clip, etc. Second, animated gifs are very often created solely for the purpose of displaying them in a short looping fashion. Third, the fact that all this can be done in a single image format makes them ideal for sharing through the web as well as private chat applications. And fifth, and this is what this is of course all about, sharing short animated gifs gives the user the possibility to share rich content not tied to any private business or entity. You can share 'em via Whatsapp, Telegram, e-mail, usb-stick, have a collection of them stored somewhere, without the need for a Facebook/Google/Amazon account and internet connectivity. You can look lovingly at them, even when your phone is in flight mode. Let's keep it that way. Let's not kill one of the nicest image formats around, and make everybody visit your website to see the embedded movie including horrid player that's supposed to be better but just isn't and never will be. Lot's of companies already did this (hi Twitter) and it's really disheartening to know that while I was able to collect a nice bunch of animated gifs over the years, my kids will probably never have that chance because the file format will just be walled off by the internet giants.
You’re setting up a booth at a convention. You want to have a video playing on a TV. It should play forever in a loop.
Apparently, with any normal “smart” TV, that’s very hard to do! You can put a video file on an SD card or something, but you probably can’t persuade the built-in video player to loop it (edit: seamlessly, anyway). You can’t just set a loop flag on the file like you can with a GIF, because proper video formats don’t have any such flag.
I guess you could set up a web page with a looping video on it? That’s more of a hassle than just putting a file on an SD card, and less reliable if the net connection is spotty.
There are companies that will literally sell you a hardware dongle just to loop videos. It’s ludicrous.
1. Similar looping behavior
2. No audio
3. Can be put in an <img> tag
You should be able to save the file like you would a gif, and viewers should also show it as they would a gif (not a video).
HEIF is an ISOBMFF (aka Quicktime/MP4 container)-derived container format for images, image sequences, and transformations. Its most visible use right now is Apple Live Photos, but various use-cases exist . OS and application support is increasing.
Work is ongoing on defining AV1-encoded frames as a payload in HEIF .
 https://nokiatech.github.io/heif/technical.html  https://nokiatech.github.io/heif/examples.html  https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/#av1-image-sequence
The patent or patent application numbers, in order of their appearance in these documents:
AU 2014255577, CA 2909566, CN 201480034418.2, EP 14785343.6, IN 6931/CHENP/2015, KR 2015-7032685, RU 2015146961, US 14/254120, US 14/617266, WO PCT/FI2016/050063, US 14/618650, WO PCT/FI2016/050064, GB 1418114.3, WO PCT/FI2015/050671, WO PCT/FI2014/050582, US 14/583332, PCT/FI2014/051052, PCT PCT/FI2016/050381, US 15/578288
This is where I'd start.
 https://mpeg.chiariglione.org/patents  https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...  https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...  https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...  https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...  https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160234144A1/ This one seems to be about specifying a Mimetype paramater that tries to describe the cost of image transformations requested in the target file, so that clients who know they can't perform those transformations can pick a different file.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160232939A1/ Seems to be about image sequences and specifying such a concept with coherent metadata in the container.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150193494A1/ This seems to talk about the myriad ways that ISOBMFF can assert metadata about data elements within, but there aren't always good ways to ensure the metadata points back to a specific data element. This talks about ways of figuring out whether such loosely-floating metadata in the container is still valid for data items; they also propose using checksums to figure out if the data items changed.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180146225A1/ This is a fancy restatement of P-frames for still images, leaving open the possibility that later frames also 'enhance' the first image in various ways e.g. upscale resolution and others.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140314148A1/ This defines signalling to allow putting all the I-frames at the start, and all the P-frames at the end.
So that solves that problem.
Which other patents is HEIF encumbered by?
Licensed Field is defined to be: "(...) the non-commercial purposes of evaluation, testing and academic research in each non-commercial case to use, run, modify (in a way that still complies with the Specification) and copy the Software to (a) generate, using one or more encoded pictures as inputs, a file complying with the Specification and including the one or more encoded pictures that were given as inputs; and/or (b) read a file complying with the Specification, resulting into one or more encoded pictures included in the file as outputs."
It is pretty clear from this reading that their patent grant is for non-commercial evaluation, testing and academic research only.
Again, AV1 is royalty free, not patents free.
There is a feature request for Chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=791658
When I want to copy an image from Instagram I have to use the dev tools to find it.
You just have to write some Greasemonkey script to circumvent all the crap that the video-serving websites do to prevent you from getting the normal video-in-a-browser UI. It's harder when you get this link https://gfycat.com/GregariousDevotedArachnid
WebP demo: https://webmproject.github.io/libwebp-demo/webp_wasm/index.h...
Theora\VP8\VP9\Opus\Vorbis demo: https://brionv.com/misc/ogv.js/demo/
ogv.js on GitHub: https://github.com/brion/ogv.js
Don't get me wrong, it's a super cool demo but anyone who does this is prod is a little nuts. The exception being a service that's write once read maybe like CCTV cameras.
Wikipedia uses ogv.js. If you've ever played audio or video on Wikipedia in Safari then you've used ogv.js.
Some Bach on Wikipedia in Safari: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromatic_Fantasia_(Bach_...