Shoutbox

calm down, sir


Pure marketing or not, it still looks great

And your mini nanas would look better
why dont you try that ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ezra
Yeah cute, prerendered animation...

Processing is the next thing...

Example...

---

That links pretty cool, i like the quality of that APNG too

[grumpy old cynical man mode on]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackjack
Pure marketing or not, it still looks great

---

It has potential.... and it has equally potential to be forgotten about in a year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackjack
And your mini nanas would look better
why dont you try that ?

---

no they wont look better.... (and I was waiting for someone to start talking about animated emoticons like that)

Why would an image with less than 256 colors look better in 32bit color format?

You don't need 32bit colors for like 99% of all advertising or animated emoticons or whatever other stuff this animated PNG is going to be used for. Examples? Take a look at how inefficient all those animated GIFs emoticons are made on forums etc, including most of the emoticons on these forums.... Read some older threads where it is shown that many animated stuff can easly be done with far less colors, far less filesize, etc... and that in most cases the people who make them don't even have a clue about how much colors they actually need and use or how many frames and thus images they need. They just start from a photograph, convert it, and then think they need like thousands of colors and hundreds of frames to show it properly. While 900 colors or so are almost exactly the same except for a 1 bit difference (thus invisible to human eye), the same for the frames. And this Animated PNG is going to be abused mostly for such stuff.

------

Sorry for not sharing all your enthiousiasm, but this there is nothing 'wow' or 'cool' about this so called "new format". In fact, animation and other stuff (including far more 'wow' stuf than animation imho) have been put in PNG chuncks since years. The only "new" thing about this whole story is that Mozilla is now going to 'support' its own(!), custom, and unofficial, PNG chunck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by roflmao456
this will create a whole new round of high-res ads

---

Sorry, but it would be pretty stupid to start using just APNG for ads.

Mostly because APNG is not supported by anything, except Mozilla. So only people who use Mozilla would be able to view those ads.

Another thing is its filesize. An ad should be shown as quickly as possible and thus as fast as possible being downloaded.

And lastly, as said before, you do not need 32bit colors to make some advertising. You can make very beautiful ads in 256 colors too. The only difference is imagination and the skillz of the ad-makers. A good ad-maker (and graphic artist) can make stunning ads in 256 and less colors just as well. Noobs and script kiddies of course will fail, since they simply use the good old graphic converters to reduce colors, with bad frames, pixelated stuff, huge filesizes, etc as a result.

So, as an ad-maker, what would you choose?
- big (unneeded) filesize, slow to download, and only supported in Mozilla.
- small filesize, quickly downloaded and showed and supported in all browsers.

---------

Don't get me wrong. It is nice that Mozilla tries to do something (but this APNG isn't the first format they tried to 'push' and seriously failed) and it is nice that it is downwards compatible, but that's it, nothing original and certainly absolutely nothing "WOOHOO!!11!!! L337! SO ORIGINAL, THIS iS GOING TO BE THE BOMB" about it imho, just a small "hmm, nice".


[grumpy old cynical man mode off]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Mostly because APNG is not supported by anything, except Mozilla.

---

Not true, Opera supports it as well. Along with two image viewing programs (KSquirrel and XnView).

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
it has equally potential to be forgotten about in a year.

---

Probably not if there's so much marketing about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
(but this APNG isn't the first format they tried to 'push' and seriously failed)

---

Which other ones did they try to force onto people? I'm curious to know.

Nice, a few small programs (of which on is for *nix) which nobody heared of. I'll drop PaintShopPro and PhotoShop immediatly now . (kuddos for Opera which is going to support it though). But "so much marketing"? Where? sure, on their own sites and fan sites/blogs, nowhere else though. They once had a kind of animated 3D vector based graphic format or something (forgot the name) in the early days which they also claimed to be the new graphical format of the web and a lot of other blahblah and "marketing", just like it is now. Nobody used it, except for some few die hards for a short time. It died out and evolved in the current vector formats you can use. However, even those aren't used by anybody. Hence my sceptisism. Though, the backward compatibility is a very big plus and may just be the thing to make it succesfull, but still, nothing new...

Anyways, I keep on being sceptic about all this untill next year or so. I'm curious how much it is being used, supported and talked about by then. It wont be very popular if it isn't going to be supported by most of the graphical related programs, including all browsers. Because, other than some novelity, what is the use of adding an animated PNG while you still need to check for compatibilty and eventually providing another animated format for those browsers which don't support it... You might as well just use something which is supported by all to begin with and to keep things short and simple.

But if it turns out to be used all over the place in a year's time, I'll "WHOOHOO" also (and eat my hat or something....)... until then: "pfff"....