WebP is much more suited for video-based content, because WebP supports both lossy and lossless compression.
Animated PNG was designed for much the same purpose, but allows for 24-bit images and 8-bit transparency. GIFs were initially created for short image animations, but now are more commonly used as silent looping videos. When looking at these results, it's incredibly important to think about what each format was designed for. In the final test, WebP once again came ahead with a smaller size than the original GIF. Source: 100x100 GIF with 8 frames, 8-bit color depth - 17 KB For my final test, I used this sticker of a happy Taco. This is one of the best use cases for WebP and aPNG - these stickers are multi-frame images, rather than animations created from a video source. Stickers have become incredibly popular in messaging applications, and some of them have basic animations as well. So in case it wasn't obvious, you should probably leave your gameplay footage as actual video. Source: 60FPS 2560x1440 Google VP8 WebM video (11 seconds long) - 13MBĪPNG: 1,504 MB before I ran out of space on my SSD and the conversion stopped For this test, I downloaded this high-resolution recording of Overwatch from Gfycat.
#PNG ANIMATOR WEBM MP4#
That's why sites like Gfycat have become popular for sharing gameplay clips, because they convert files to either WebM or MP4 (or both). Saving your best game moments as GIFs isn't a good idea - unless you like massive files. WebP still came out ahead, and ended up being marginally smaller than the original GIF. This time, the difference between WebP and aPNG is much smaller. Source: 400x321 GIF with 31 frames, 8-bit color depth - 490 KB These smaller GIFs are especially popular on sites like Tumblr, where the upload size limit is small. Test #2 - Short GIFįor the next test, I used this GIF created from an episode of Rick and Morty. In this test, WebP is definitely the winner (in terms of file size) at just 508 KB - but it was still roughly twice the size of the original MP4. So for my first test, I downloaded a six second YouTube video and converted it to a GIF, WebP, and aPNG. Test #1 - Short YouTube videoĬreating GIFs from short video clips (such as reaction GIFs) is perhaps the most popular use for the format, especially on social networks. If your browser doesn't support animated PNG, only the first frame will be shown. Keep in mind that you'll need a browser that works with the file you're trying to open. Where possible, I have uploaded each result file so you can see them for yourself. No changes, such as compression or resizing, were performed during the conversion.
#PNG ANIMATOR WEBM WINDOWS#
I converted each source file to WebP, aPNG, and GIF (unless the source was already a GIF) using FFMPEG version N-80234-g49b0246, running on Windows 10. To see how the image formats stacked up against each other, I performed four tests based on how GIFs are commonly utilized on the web. Chrome 59 is currently the only browser that can view both formats. WebP is only supported by Chrome, Opera, and Opera Mini. WebP and aPNG have not gained much traction on the web (especially compared to GIFs), mostly due to browser support. Excluding Chrome, only Firefox and Safari support aPNG (Opera did before it switched to Chrome's rendering engine, Blink). Telegram uses the WebP format for its stickers, and most images on the Play Store use it as well.
Originally WebP did not support animated images or transparency, but those features have since been added. WebP is an image format developed by Google, as a derivative of the VP8 video format and sister project to the WebM video container format. For example, Apple's iOS 10 iMessage stickers use the aPNG format. Although it was rejected by the PNG group as an official extension in 2007, it remains in use.
#PNG ANIMATOR WEBM PORTABLE#
The Animated Portable Graphics Format, or aPNG for short, is an extension to the normal PNG format developed in 2008. Before diving into testing, it's worth briefly talking about the formats themselves and what they were designed for.
0 kommentar(er)
