> [APNG] should be a better alternative for GIF-like images (including transparency and low bit depth), and MP4 + H.265 should be the alternative for movie-like content.
H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264.
If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a burden on users, when alternatives already exist?
Don't get me wrong, I totally acknowledge that we still have the issue of mp4 files not autoplaying on mobile browsers. However, once that is solved, I would avoid APNG and Gif, in favour of said video format.
Here's hoping that one day, BPG is adopted widely, so that I can forgo mp4 and APNG/Gif entirely for use cases that cover short animations for aesthetic reasons.
Albeit, I do admit, for the time being, I will resort to using mp4 and OGG on the desktop browser, and either a static image or APNG on the mobile browser.
Do content providers have to pay certain royalties with h.264? I thought the players were free of royalties and the license was paid for encoded content. And then with h.265 I thought I heard that there were two different license pools with different licensing strategies.
I'm not sure that meme generators have royalties very high on their list of concerns, the big hosts that host a lot of them might have some concerns about it though.
At this point, a newer webP based off the newer VP10 might be the only realistic PNG, GIF, and JPEG replacement but it doesn't exist yet.
For H.264 it's the opposite (for web content), only the players need to pay royalties.
For H.265, both need to pay royalties, which depend on the business model. The licensing terms are pretty much totally unsuited for usage as a still image format. And yes, there are multiple pools and you have to pay all of them.
No, hence, Gif/APNG are good for lossless animations. But for sites like imgur that host animations, I would like it if their gifv format (pretty much mp4/webm) played immediately on my mobile, without it having to be a gif file.
H.264/H.265 are good for both Gif-like and movie-like content. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Although APNG has inter-frame compression, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as H.265 let alone H.264.
If I want animation, why would I use a format that puts a burden on users, when alternatives already exist?
Don't get me wrong, I totally acknowledge that we still have the issue of mp4 files not autoplaying on mobile browsers. However, once that is solved, I would avoid APNG and Gif, in favour of said video format.
Here's hoping that one day, BPG is adopted widely, so that I can forgo mp4 and APNG/Gif entirely for use cases that cover short animations for aesthetic reasons.
Albeit, I do admit, for the time being, I will resort to using mp4 and OGG on the desktop browser, and either a static image or APNG on the mobile browser.
edit: some clarification