[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]
/ 
