Comments on Profile Post by memethyl

GIF was made for shitty computers from 1990-something. this is shockingly apparent when you realize that it only allows for 256 colors (not that shitty 90's-era computers could handle that many anyway). combined with the shit compression, this makes 99% of gifs look fucking terrible. 2/?

also, the last GIF specification was made in 1989. NINETEEN FUCKING EIGHTY-NINE. IF YOU DIDN'T REALIZE IT ALREADY, IT'S BEEN TWENTY SEVEN YEARS. why is it that even though we've got powerful computers that can render high-quality video and play cutting-edge games, we're limited to a shitty format from 1989 for actual animation? 3/?

sure, there are alternatives like APNG, but these alternatives have little to no support in web browsers. in fact, only 6 out of 42 browsers in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Image_format_support support APNG at all. not even google chrome supports it. 4/?

we need more support for non-shitty image animation formats.

however, until that happens, if we want image animation, we're stuck with a shitty format from 1989, made for shitty computers from 1989. 5/5

addendum: yes, i know the "current year" argument isn't the best, but when the quality is suffering because of the ancient format, it's kinda time to change or replace it.

also, in retrospect, that wikipedia list is far from perfect, mostly because it's got browsers like mosaic that haven't been updated in 20 years. however, my point still stands that APNG is barely supported.

Gifs aint THAT bad, but i get your point. Its outdated and needs an upgrade

new addendum: i think GIF is better for low-bandwidth connections, like on phones and stuff. however, GIF should NOT be the only supported image animation format. i'm saying we need more options.