Re:Chromium: Add support for Animated PNG
by versteegen on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @06:55PM
(#13880678)
Time-based artifacting? I think you might not be aware that it's not necessary to have a time delay between frames (in fact, time delays and animations are actually a Netscape extension to the format!) In fact breaking a frame up into multiple pieces with different bounding boxes is a compression technique used to reduce the amount of zero bytes that need to be encoded/compressed. ImageMagick and gifsicle will do this.
Re:Chromium: Add support for Animated PNG
by Dylan16807 on Thursday March 16, 2017 @02:51AM
(#13883072)
If you set the delay between frames to 0 or 1 hundredths of a second, browsers will assume it's a mistake and bump it up, usually to 10. The fastest you can actually make the delay is 2/100 of a second. There's no way to have multiple frames show up simultaneously.
Re:Chromium: Add support for Animated PNG
by andrewshadura on Thursday March 16, 2017 @07:52AM
(#13884249)
There was a true-colour GIF using more than 256 colours using this technique.
Re:Chromium: Add support for Animated PNG
by Dylan16807 on Thursday March 16, 2017 @05:20PM
(#13889301)
Sure. It works eventually, but it causes distortion as the frames layer over each other with very visible delays.
That's... technically possible but it gives you a ridiculous level of time-based artifacting when you need more than 256 colors to appear at the same time.
APNG beats animated GIF for most cases where animated GIF is useful. Just like PNG beats GIF for most cases where non-JPEG images are useful.